Slllliiiill  !  I   !  1   I  i 

liiltallliliili 


I      I  PI    IP  P>!!) 
iillljijl  ii    1      I    '  hN^ 


III 


■■ill 


i* 


IS  « 

;,    iiyh  iiU hii!  I:.i 
ill  iil!ii:ii!t!i)l:iiil>n< 


jp;;, 

^jiiiiijifc 


II  i 


HiiHiisHJii 


iiiilililiijiilili..: 


m 


i 

i 

IHi! 


iiilli 

Nil 
iiiiiii 


m. 
iiipiJH; 


!i  111;., 


l|lp!ji| 


!  ill  iilj!  plji! !; 

ijiiijiipiliiiiiiiipp. 

i     I     11  lip'" 

riipiiiifti' 


liliii 


ction, 


THE  POLITY 
OF  THE  ANCIENT  HEBREWS 


OCT  27  1919 


MAYER  SULZBERGER 


PHILADELPHIA 

JULIUS  H.  GREENSTONE 

\912 


PRESS     OF 

CAHAN   PRINTING  COMPANY 

218    S.    FOURTH    STREET 
PHILADELPHIA.    PA. 


The  following  lectures  were  read  before 
the  Dropsie  College  for  Hebrew  and 
Cognate  Learning,  Philadelphia,  in  the 
month  of  March,  \9\2,  They  are  mere 
studies  in  the  public  law  of  the  ancient 
Hebrews.  The  author  hopes  to  supple- 
ment them  by  further  studies  on  other 
branches  of  that  interesting  system  of 
jurisprudence. 


THE  POLITY  OF  THE  ANCIENT  HEBREWS* 

By  Mayer  Sulzberger,  Philadelphia 

I 

In  accepting  the  flattering  invitation  of  this  learned 
institution  to  deliver  a  course  of  lectures  on  the  Institutes 
of  Government  of  the  Ancient  Hebrews,  the  natural  re- 
luctance to  assume  a  novel  duty  was  overcome  by  the 
earnest  suggestion  that  at  least  so  much  was  due  to  the 
cause  and  to  the  venerated  Founder  of  this  college.  In 
the  course  of  a  long  and  active  life,  he  always  found  time 
and  opportunity  to  further  the  cause  of  Hebrew  learning, 
and  this  munificent  endowment  by  his  last  will  and  testa- 
ment was  the  fitting  crown  upon  his  lifelong  labors  in  the 
cause. 

The  western  world — the  world  of  modern  civilization 
— has  always  felt  and  evinced  a  transcendent  interest 
in  the  polity  of  the  ancient  Hebrews.  The  books  in  which 
it  is  recorded  were  once  universally  accepted  as  literally 
inspired,  and  although  the  modern  course  of  thought  has 
tended  to  raise  important  dissents  from  this  view,  it  is 
still  widely  accepted,  and  even  those  who  reject  it  have 
contributed  some  of  the  most  valuable  aids  to  the  under- 
standing of  the  biblical  literature. 

*A    course    of    four    lectures    delivered    before    the    DROPSIE    COLLEGE 
FOR    HEBREW    AND    COGNATE    LEARNING,    March    i8,    21,    25    and    28, 


2  POLITY  OF    ANCIENT    HEURKWS — SULZBERGER 

A  phenomenon  so  remarkable  cannot  be  merely  casual 
or  accidental.  Whereas  the  legislation  of  the  great  Asiatic 
empires  of  India  and  China  has  merely  aroused  the  curi- 
osity of  the  scholar,  the  polity  of  the  Hebrews  has  awak- 
ened the  earnest  attention  of  learned  and  simple,  of  cleric 
and  layman,  of  statesman  and  poet.  There  is  a  feeling 
that  the  ancient  Hebrew  ideals  of  government  concur  with 
our  own  in  their  deepest  meanings.  Absolute  autocracy, 
the  lordly  disregard  of  the  humble,  the  exclusive  concern 
of  the  individual  for  himself,  these  are  all  attributes  which 
appear  to  us  to  be  present  in  the  great  and  powerful  of 
Eastern  lands,  and  they  repel  us.  In  the  Hebrew  polity 
the  ideals  are  the  reverse.  The  King  was  to  live  for  his 
people,  was  governed  by  a  fixed  law  which  he  had  not  made 
and  which  he  could  not  unmake,  and  was  checked  by  a 
national  council,  representative  of  the  people. 

The  judicial  function  was,  as  time  progressed,  severed 
from  the  general  sovereignty  and  became  a  power  which 
owed  allegiance  to  the  law  above  all  other  masters,  antici- 
pating in  this  respect  that  distribution  of  sovereign  func- 
tions which  is  an  essential  attribute  of  modern  constitu- 
tions. 

Aliens  were  no  longer  looked  on  as  enemies,  but  were 
to  be  treated  with  fairness  and  regarded  as  friends. 
Slavery  was  abhorred,  and  the  abuses  of  capitalism  were 
deplored  and  restrained. 

A  few  years  ago  I  had  the  honor  to  deliver  a  lecture 
before  the  Jewish  Theological  Seminary  at  New  York,  in 
which  I  endeavored  to  show  that  this  trait  was  present  in 
the  Hebrew  people  from  the  earliest  times;  that  the  aver- 
sion to  absolute  kingly  authority  was  not  modern  or  transi- 
tory, but  could  be  traced  back  historically  to  the  election 


POLITY   OF    ANCIENT    HEBRE^WS — SULZBERGER  3 

and  control  by  the  people's  representatives  of  the  kings 
from  the  very  first  of  them,  Saul,  to  the  very  last,  Zedekiah ; 
that  is,  through  a  period  of  more  than  four  centuries.  I 
also  endeavored  to  demonstrate  that  this  representative 
council,  which  had  essential  qualities  of  modern  parlia- 
ments, was  for  Jong  known  as  the  'am  ha-ares,  a  technical 
term  w^hich,  in  the  mutations  of  time  and  circumstance, 
acquired  other  and  totally  alien  connotations,  until  at  last 
the  true  meaning  was  forgotten.  The  very  simplicity  of 
the  words,  the  ease  with  which  a  mere  tyro  can  translate 
them  with  the  help  of  a  dictionary,  became,  in  later  times, 
a  powerful  obstacle  to  the  recovery  of  the  true  meaning. 

On  that  occasion  I  said  {The  Am-ha-arctz,  Philadel- 
phia (Greenstone),  1910,  page  58)  :  "The  Parliament  of 
Israel  had  its  humble  beginnings  at  the  city  gate,  where  the 
elders  of  the  town,  'comers  to  the  gate,'  sat  to  hold  the  Town 
Council  and  the  Municipal  Court.  Gradually  there  was 
evolved,  from  this  institution,  the  tribal  'Am,  which  dealt 
with  the  larger  matters  of  the  district  inhabited  by  the 
tribe.  Friendliness  among  neighbors,  and  the  necessity  of 
defense  against  enemies,  produced  alliances  between  sev- 
eral tribes,  and  finally  there  resulted  a  union  of  all  or 
nearly  all  the  tribes  of  Israel.  Then  only  could  there  have 
been  formed  a  general  gathering  of  delegates,  an  'Am  of 
the  land,  our  'Am  ha-aretz." 

Further  investigation  has  not  resulted  in  finding 
evidence  that  a  tribal  'am  ever  existed.  Perhaps  such  evi- 
dence may  be  forthcoming  in  the  future,  but  it  is  just  as 
likely,  and  even  more  so,  that  the  actual  development  of  the 
'am  did  not  follow  the  symmetrical  and  logical  course  I 
had  marked  out  for  it.  Life  with  its  rich  and  varied  aspects 
has  a  way  of  disappointing  the  most  rigid  and  exact  logical 


4  POI.ITY  OF    ANCIENT    HEBREWS — SULZBERGER 

processes.  This  fact,  however,  in  no  wise  renders  doubtful 
the  main  thesis  that  the  'am  ha-ares,  a  great  representative 
body,  played  an  important  part  in  the  government  of 
ancient  Israel. 

This  present  course  will  be  limited  in  the  main  to  the 
examination  of  the  "city  gate,"  where  the  council  (sekcnim, 
hc'alim,  anashini)  sat,  not  only  to  hold  the  Town  Council 
and  the  Municipal  Court,  but  to  exercise  much  higher 
powers.  I  shall  endeavor  to  show  that  in  pre-Israelite 
times  Palestine  was  composed  of  many  little  city  kingdoms, 
independent  of  one  another,  sometimes  leagued  together 
for  offence  or  defense,  sometimes  arrayed  against  one  an- 
other. They  lacked  large  ideals.  Their  heaven,  like  their 
earth,  was  parceled  out  among  many,  each  with  limited 
local  jurisdiction.  Gods  and  Kings  alike  were  profusely 
numerous. 

Upon  them  came  down  the  Hebrews  with  their  large 
religious  and  national  ideas.  They  believed  at  least  that 
Jiivii  was  the  true  and  only  God  who  had  rule  over  Pales- 
tine, and  that  all  other  Gods  were  in  that  domain  rebels 
and  usurpers.  The  heathen's  thought  that  the  land  be- 
longed to  many  gods  and  many  kings  came  in  conflict  with 
the  Hebrew  notion  of  Canaan  as  one  land,  the  portion  of 
one  God  (Jhvh),  for  the  use  of  one  nation,  Jhvh's  own, 
his  hclek  ( Deut.  32,  9),  his  scgullah  (Exod.  19,  5). 

"When  Elyon  divided  to  the  nations  their  inheritance, 

When  he  separated  the  sons  of  Adam, 

He  set  bounds  for  the  (seventy)  peoples,  (Gen.  46,  27). 

Their  number  even  as  the  B'ne  Israel 

Jhvh's  portion  is  his  people, 

Jacob  the  lot  of  his  inheritance. 

He  found  him  in  the  desert  land. 


POLITY   OF   ANCIENT    HE;bRE;wS — SULZBERGER  5 

And  in  the  waste,  howling  wilderness; 

He  led  him  about,  he  instructed  him. 

He  kept  him  as  the  apple  of  his  eye. 

As  the  eagle  stirreth  up  her  nest, 

Fluttereth  over  her  young, 

Spreadeth  abroad  her  wings, 

Taketh  them, 

Beareth  them  on  her  wings, 

So  Jhvh  alone  did  lead  him; 

With  him  there  was  no  alien  God"  (Deut.  32,  8-12), 

The  Hebrews  came  as  an  army.  Their  purpose  was 
to  wrest  a  country  from  its  possessors,  a  task  that  could 
only  be  accomplished  by  war.  H  they  had  hopes  of  sudden 
and  complete  conquest,  these  were  soon  dissipated.  The 
strife  went  on  for  decades,  if  not  longer,  and  even  at  the 
end  the  goal  was  never  quite  reached.  Some  parts  of  the 
country  always  continued  in  the  possession  of  the  natives, 
while  in  others  a  mode  of  compromise  was  found  which 
enabled  the  natives  and  the  invaders  to  live  together  in 
peace.  While  on  the  march  it  was  well  for  Moses  to  pray 
Jhvh  to  scatter  Israel's  enemies  and  to  protect  the  myriads 
(divisions)  and  regiments  of  the  Hebrew  armies  (Num. 
10,  35-36),  but  when  they  were  being  settled  on  the  land, 
they  were  confronted  with  the  many  perplexing  problems 
with  which  peaceful  governments  must  deal. 

The  task  of  ruling  a  country  is  far  more  complex  than 
that  of  governing  a  camp.  The  compactness  and  the  unity 
of  the  camp  are  its  essential  features,  while  the  former 
demands  the  scattering  of  the  people  into  a  thousand  sev- 
eral places,  separated  from  each  other  by  obstacles,  natural 
and  artificial. 


6  POLITY  OF    ANCIENT    HEBREWS — Sl'LZBERGER 

The  actual  condition  of  the  country  and  the  people,  old 
and  new,  had  to  be  considered  in  framing  the  new  govern- 
ment. That  they  met  the  difficulties  and  practically  over- 
came them,  history  shows.  The  new  territory  was  in  the 
end  welded  into  a  solid  Hebrew  state.  The  city-kings  and 
city-gods  disappeared,  and  in  their  place  came  a  true  nation 
and  a  national  God — a  conception  which  ultimately  ex- 
panded more  and  more  until  the  idea  of  one  humanity  and 
one  God  became  deeply  rooted. 

Our  task  in  this  course  is  to  ascertain  what  were  the 
early  stages  of  this  development,  dealing  in  the  first  place 
with  the  common  theory  of  tribal  organization,  ascertaining 
its  true  nature,  and  showing  that  its  duration  was  less  than 
is  usually  believed.  We  shall  next  examine  the  pre-Israelite 
city-states  and  their  mode  of  government,  following  this  up 
by  a  view  of  the  Hebrew  statesmanship  which,  retaining  the 
form  of  organization  of  city-states,  materially  modified  its 
essence.  The  notices  preserved  in  the  Bible  of  the  actual 
exercise  of  the  jurisdiction  by  the  Hebrew  cities  will  next 
be  considered,  to  be  followed  by  a  consideration  of  the 
legal  provisions  concerning  these  Hebrew  city-councils 
which  still  survive  in  the  Pentateuch.  And  lastly  we  shall 
endeavor  to  show  that  by  degrees  the  national  religious 
idea  was  spread  by  the  Levites  and  the  Ncbiim,  until  a  true 
Federal  state  evolved,  with  incidental  remarks  as  to  the 
mode  by  which  these  great  changes  were  efifectcd. 

I  need  scarcely  say  that  in  an  inquiry  like  this  into 
obscure  points  of  Hebrew  Constitutional  history,  any  lan- 
guage I  may  use  must  not  be  construed  into  dogmatic  as- 
sertion. We  are  all  fellow-students,  earnestly  striving  for 
light  and  knowledge,  with  the  consciousness  that  the  task 


POLITY   OF    ANCIENT    HEBREWS — SULZBERGER  7 

is  difficult  and  that  the  work  of  many  minds  is  required  to 
give  it  even  a  semblance  of  completeness. 

The  common  opinion  undoubtedly  is  that  the  Hebrew 
commonwealth  was  formed  by  the  union  of  twelve  tribes 
(mattof,  shebatim),  which  were  subdivided  into  clans 
(mishpahot),  the  latter  into  families  (bct-abot),  and  these 
in  their  turn  were  composed  of  warriors  (gebarim). 

The  classical  text  on  the  subject  is  in  the  seventh  chap- 
ter of  Joshua,  which  relates  that  the  war  for  the  conquest 
of  Canaan  was  auspiciously  begun  by  the  capture  of  the 
walled  city  of  Jericho ;  that  by  Divine  order,  its  inhabitants 
(save  a  few  favored  for  cause)  were  doomed  to  extinc- 
tion, and,  moreover,  it  was  commanded  that  the  victors 
should  avoid  taking  booty,  since  it  was  herein  and  as  such 
would  contaminate  not  only  the  taker,  but  the  whole  camp 
(Josh.  6,  i8).  A  soldier  yielding  to  temptation  captured 
and  hid  away  a  goodly  Babylonish  garment,  two  hundred 
shekels  of  silver,  and  a  golden  ornament  of  fifty  shekels 
weight. 

Instantly  the  Divine  favor  was  withdrawn.  The  city 
of  Ai,  the  point  of  next  attack,  which  seemed  easy  of 
capture,  resisted  and  defeated  the  Israelite  force.  Joshua, 
perturbed,  inquired  of  the  oracle  and  was  informed  that 
the  disfavor  was  due  to  the  breach  of  the  order  against 
booty.  It  became  his  task  to  discover  the  guilty  person. 
The  mode  of  consulting  the  oracle  is  given  at  length  (Josh. 
7.  16-18).  A  series  of  questions  is  asked,  and  the  oracle, 
through  the  priest  in  charge  of  the  Ark  of  the  Covenant, 
makes  reply. 

Incidentally,  too,  we  learn  the  scheme  of  army  organ- 
ization. A  representative  of  each  tribe  being  brought 
before  the  Ark,  the  question  was  put:  To  which  of  these 


8  POLITY  OF    ANCIENT    HEBREWS — SULZBERGER 

tribes  (shebatim)  does  the  offender  belong?  The  answer 
was,  Judah.  Thereupon  the  representatives  of  the  several 
clans  of  the  tribe  of  Judah  were  placed  before  the  Ark,  and 
the  question  propounded :  To  which  of  these  mishpahot 
does  the  offender  belong?  The  answer  was,  Zerah.  The 
representatives  of  the  several  families  of  the  Zerah  clan 
being  placed  before  the  Ark,  the  next  question  was:  To 
which  of  these  bct-abot  does  the  offender  belong?  The 
answer  was,  Zabdi.  Thereupon  the  gebarim  (individual 
warriors)  of  the  Zabdi  family,  being  put  before  the  Ark, 
the  question  was  put:  Which  of  these  gebarim  is  the  guilty- 
man?  And  the  answer  was,  Achan,  ben  Karmi,  ben  Zabdi, 
ben  Zerah,  of  the  tribe  (matteh)  of  Judah,  The  text  is 
slightly  defective,  but  a  careful  reading  of  it  justifies  this 
translation. 

We  have  here  a  perfect  scheme  of  organization :  tribes 
(mattot,  shebatim),  clans  (mishpahot),  families  (bet- 
abot),  gebarim  (individual  soldiers). 

It  does  not,  however,  stand  alone.  The  scheme  put 
before  Moses  by  Jethro  is  different.  It  divides  the  hosts 
into  thousands  (alaphim),  hundreds  (me'ot),  fifties 
(hamishim)  and  tens  {'asarot)    (Exod.  i8,  21). 

At  the  selection  of  Saul  for  King  (I  Sam.  10,  17-25) 
at  Mizpeh  the  people  were  divided  into  tribes  (shebatim) 
and  clans  (mishpahot).  The  bct-abot  are  not  mention- 
ed, Saul  being  picked  out  of  the  mishpahah  of  Matri. 
And  there  is  still  another  difficulty.  In  verse  19,  the  word 
alaphim  is  used  for  the  mishpahot,  a  phenomenon  which 
occurs  also  in  the  story  of  Gideon  (Judges  6,  15),  who  says 
that  he  belonged  to  a  poor  clan  (cleph).  To  add  to  the 
confusion,   the   passage   Numbers    i,    16  seems   to   identify 


POLITY    OF    ANCIENT    HEBREWS — SULZBERGER  Q 

the  ncsi'im  of  the  tribes  with  the  rasliim  of  the  alaphim, 
and   would  make   the  latter  word  mean  tribes. 

In  later  times  the  word  cleph  obtained  a  meaning  even 
more  extended.  When  Saul  was  eager  to  seize  David,  he 
promised  to  hunt  him  out  of  the  fastnesses  or  districts 
ialaphim)  of  the  Judean  wilderness,  while  Micah  5,  i 
speaks  of  the  city  of  Bethlehem  as  among  the  cities 
(alaphiui)  of  Judah. 

A\'hether  the  systems  of  Joshua  (7,  14-18)  and  of 
Jethro  (Exod.  18,  21)  existed  contemporaneously,  may  be 
incapable  of  determination  on  the  evidence,  but  the  fact 
seems  scarcely  probable.  It  may  be  a  fair  conjecture  to 
believe  that  the  tribal  system  came  first,  and  as  time  went 
on  the  organization  of  the  army  became  more  perfect.  So, 
likewise,  as  the  Hebrew  army  occupied  and  settled  the  land 
piecemeal,  an  organization  quite  unlike  the  military  organi- 
zation in  either  shape  would  take  its  place. 

The  Jethro  organization  being  military,  pure  and 
simple,  would  go  down  first,  while  the  tribal  organization, 
founded  on  notions  of  kinship  and  to  a  certain  extent  by 
neighborhood  settlement,  would  last  longer.  As  the  civil 
government  became  more  and  more  powerful,  it  would 
easily  appropriate  old  tribal  military  terms  and  attach  them 
to  officers  and  circumstances  of  civil  life,  creating  at  the 
same  time  new  meanings,  wholly  or  partially  unrelated  to 
their  original  meaning. 

So  only  can  we  explain  the  confusion  in  the  term 
eleph,  which,  meaning  at  first  a  regiment  of  soldiers,  is  in 
antiquarian  records  confounded  now  with  tribe,  now  with 
clan,  and  in  the  speech  of  the  day  comes  to  mean  a  district 
of  land,  or  even  a  city. 


lO  POLITY  OF   ANCIENT    HEBREWS — SULZBERGER 

On  this  principle  Jethro's  scheme  becomes  plain.  He 
would  form  regiments  of  a  thousand  (alaphim),  divide 
them  into  companies  of  a  hundred  (me'ot),  divide  each  of 
these  again  into  half-companies  of  fifty  (hamishim),  and 
then  subdivide  the  latter  into  squads  (corporal's  guards) 
of  ten,  each  division  and  subdivision  having  a  proper  officer 
(sar). 

Some  such  arrangement  appears  indicated  in  Judges 
20,  lo,  where  a  squad  of  ten  men  out  of  every  hundred 
(company)  are  designated  to  provision  the  army,  and  the 
statement  is  incidentally  made  that  there  are  companies 
(me'ot),  regiments  (alaphim),  and  divisions  (rcbabot, 
10,000). 

There  are  other  passages  confirming  this  view.  In  the 
Song  of  Moses  (Deut.  32,  30)  the  poet  asks :  "How  should 
one  chase  a  regiment  (eleph)  or  two  a  division  (rcbabah)  ?" 
And  in  Deut.  33,  17,  the  military  prowess  of  the  house  of 
Joseph  is  based  on  the  rebabot  (divisions)  of  Ephraim,  and 
the  alaphim  (regiments)  of  Manasseh.  The  enmity  con- 
ceived by  Saul  for  David  is  related  as  having  originated  in 
the  former's  mortification  at  the  extravagant  language  of 
a  popular  song  which  represented  David  as  slaughtering 
whole  divisions  {rebabot),  while  Saul  had  only  decimated 
regiments  {alaphim)    (I  Sam,  18,  8). 

Perhaps  even  the  term  Jiamushim  (soldiers)  originated 
from  these  half-companies  of  fifty  (Exod.  13,  18;  Josh. 
I,  14;  4,  12;  Judges  7,  11).  And  the  word  sar  long  con- 
tinued to  be  applied  to  military  officers  (Isai.  21,  5;  H 
Chron.  32,  21). 

H  this  theory  be  correct,  we  are  entitled  to  believe 
that  as  early  as  the  time  of  Saul  the  tribal  system  had  so 
weakened  that  they  used  mishpahah  and  clcph  indifi'erently 


POLITY    OF   ANCIENT    HEBREWS — SULZBERGER  II 

for  each  other  and  did  not  keep  bet-abot  in  mind,  and 
that  in  later  times  there  were  still  wider  divergences  from 
the  ancient  meaning. 

The  whole  history  of  the  shophetim  also  tends  to  con- 
firm this  view.  Gideon,  whose  connection  with  any  other 
tribe  than  Manasseh  is  not  made  clear,  was  early  considered 
the  shophet  of  all  Israel.  And  the  same  is  true  of  his  son 
Abimelech  (Judges  9,  22),  as  also  of  Jephthah  (Judges  11, 
11).  More  significant  still  is  the  fact  that  we  are  not  told 
to  which  tribe  Shamgar,  Deborah,  Ibzan,  or  Abdon 
belonged,  an  omission  scarcely  explicable  if  we  assume  that 
each  tribe  had  some  kind  of  a  government  of  its  own 
within  its  own  territory. 

There  is  no  difficulty  in  concluding  that  the  real  tribal 
organization  disappeared  with  the  conquest  and  survived 
only  in  names  and  in  fragments  of  institutions.  As  early 
as  the  time  of  David,  the  census  lumps  the  ten  tribes  to- 
gether as  Israel    (II  Sam.  24,  9;  I  Chron.  21,  5-6). 

Solomon's  government  seems  to  have  ignored  tribal 
authority.  His  twelve  nissabim  had  jurisdiction  over  terri- 
tory, but  their  tribal  connection  is  not  mentioned  (I  Kings 
4,  7-19).  Jeroboam  was  Solomon's  supervisor  of  labor  for 
Beth- Joseph  (I  Kings  11,  28),  which  seems  to  have  been  an 
alternative  name  for  all  Israel  outside  of  Judah-Benjamin 
(I  Kings  II,  28).  The  narrative  concerning  the  latter's 
strange  investiture  into  the  kingly  office  by  the  prophet 
Ahijah  would  seem  to  allow  of  no  other  conclusion  (I 
Kings  II,  31).  And  finally,  when  the  rebelHon  breaks 
out,  there  is  no  mention  of  any  tribe.  All  Israel  (kol- 
Israel)  shouted:  "To  your  tents,  O  Israel!"  (I  Kings  12, 
16). 


12  POIvITY  OF    ANCIENT    HEBREWS — SULZBERGER 

Still  more  significant  of  the  efifacement  of  tribal  lines 
is  the  fact  that  we  do  not  know  to  which  tribe  belonged 
Omri,  Ahab,  or  Jehu,  the  three  most  notable  kings  of  the 
northern  line.  The  evidence  seems  conclusive  that  this 
effacement  of  tribal  lines  had  gone  on  for  a  few  centuries, 
that  we  see  the  movement  in  progress  in  the  Song  of 
Deborah,  and  that  it  was  nearly  accomplished  by  the  time 
of  the  pnest-shopJict  Eli.  At  all  events,  the  tradition  was 
that  Deborah  judged  not  a  tribe  or  a  small  group  of  tribes, 
but  the  B'ne-Isracl  (Judges  4,  5)  and  that  Eli  (I  Sam.  4, 
18)  and  Samuel  did  the  same  (I  Sam.  7,  16-17).  And 
although  it  may  well  be  that  some  of  the  military  chiefs, 
called  shophctim  (judges),  ruled  only  a  section  of  Israel, 
the  evidence  that  this  rule  was  tribal  in  its  nature  is  very 
scanty.  Jephthah,  one  of  the  most  renowned  of  them,  was 
the  head  of  Gilead,  which  was  not  a  tribe  but  a  territory. 
At  all  events,  the  oldest  traditions  of  Israel  were  that  there 
was  in  those  old  times  a  national  union  with  a  national 
head. 

Assuming,  then,  that  this  military  organization  for 
conquest  became  gradually  modified  as  the  invasion  grew 
more  and  metre  successful,  it  becomes  interesting  to  learn 
how  and  why  such  changes  took  place. 

The  objective  purpose  of  Moses  was  to  overcome  and 
possess  Canaan,  the  territory  between  the  Mediterranean 
and  the  Jordan,  and  to  establish  therein  the  B'ne-Israel 
as  a  unified  commonwealth  with  righteous  aims  and  sound 
laws.  For  reasons  which  seemed  to  him  good  and  sufficient, 
he  determined  that  the  attack  should  be  made  from  the 
east,  by  fording  the  Jordan.  In  a  friendly  way  he  requested 
the  ]:)Owers  controlling  the  eastern  territory  to  grant  him 
leave  to  pass.     This  being  refused,  he  fought  his  way,  and 


POLITY   01?   ANCIENT    HEBREWS — SULZBERGER  1 3 

thus  the  war  began  in  a  country  on  which  he  had  no  hostile 
designs  and  at  a  time  earher  than  he  had  planned.  Sihon, 
king  of  the  Amorites,  was  the  first  to  go  down  before  the 
invaders.  At  the  battle  of  Jahaz  he  was  defeated,  and  in 
consequence  lost  his  land  from  Arnon  to  Jabbok.  Israel 
took  all  his  cities  with  their  banof  and  occupied  them 
(Numb.  21,  24-25,  32).  Og,  king  of  Bashan,  was  the  next 
to  suffer.  At  Edrei  he  was  totally  routed  (Numb.  21,  33, 
35),  and  Israel  took  possession  of  his  domain,  as  it  had 
before  dealt  with  the  Amorite  land  (Numb.  21,  34). 

The  advance  was  then  made  to  the  Jordan,  opposite 
JeHcho,  from  which  point  it  had  been  designed  to  begin 
the  war. 

At  once  the  important  question  obtruded  itself,  whether 
it  were  wise  to  abandon  the  conquered  territory  for  an 
enemy  to  re-occupy,  or  to  retain  it  and  thus  enlarge  the 
portion  of  land  which  would  fall  to  each.  The  B'ne 
Reuben  and  the  B'ne-Gad  offered  to  send  their  military 
contingent  to  aid  in  the  conquest  of  Canaan  proper,  and 
to  waive  their  share  of  that  land,  if  the  territory  east  of 
Jordan  were  assigned  to  them  as  their  portion.  Their  offer 
was  accepted  and  they,  together  with  the  half-tribe  of 
Manasseh  (which  appears  to  have  joined  them  in  their 
project),  received  the  territory  which  had  been  reft  from 
Sihon  and  from  Og,  with  the  cities  thereof  (Numb.  32. 
1-33),  their  dependencies  (banot)  (Numb.  32,  42),  and 
their  villages  (hazvwot)  (Numb.  32,  41),  or  haserim  (Josh. 
13,  28). 

The  momentous  nature  of  the  question  facing  Israel 
was  soon  realized.  Two  tribes  and  a  half  were  to  leave 
their  wives,  their  children,  and  their  cattle  in  the  conquered 
territory,   while  the  active   warriors,  all  the  men  between 


14  POUTY  OF   ANCIENT    HEBREWS — SULZBERGER 

twenty  and  fifty  years  of  age,  were  to  leave  the  country  to 
carry  on  in  the  land  west  of  Jordan  a  war  that  might  last 
for  years.  The  necessity  of  providing  for  the  government 
of  this  East-Jordanic  territory  was  obvious.  Order  had  to 
be  preserved,  enemies  guarded  against,  quarrels  adjusted. 
The  duty  naturally  devolved  on  the  sekenim,  the  men  over 
fifty,  who  had  become  exempt  from  active  military  service 
in  the  field.  Circumstances  did  not  favor  the  immediate 
establishment  of  a  permanent  tribal  government  in  the 
East-Jordanic  territory.  The  vigorous  and  ambitious  mili- 
tary chiefs  were  about  to  depart  on  a  long  and  perilous 
expedition ;  the  country  was  already  organized  into  a  series 
of  city-states  or  district  states,  and,  however  faulty  the 
system,  it  had  worked  somehow.  As  a  temporary  arrange- 
ment it  may  have  commended  itself  to  the  best  minds  of 
Israel.  This  nascent  nation  had  great  ambitions  but  no 
past  history.  It  had  never  owned  land  or  cities,  but  it 
sacredly  cherished  ancient  ambitions  which  told  of  divine 
promises  of  both. 

Now  it  suddenly  and  unexpectedly  became  the  master 
of  these  little  city-kingdoms. 

Sentiment  doubtless  soon  became  active.  Men  recalled 
the  legends  of  old,  that  the  first  man  who  left  Eden  built 
a  city  (Gen.  4,  17)  ;  that  the  patriarch  Abraham  sojourned 
in  the  city  of  Gerar  (Gen.  20,  i)  ;  that  Isaac  was  concerned 
in  the  founding  of  Beersheba  (Gen.  26,  33),  and  that  Jacob 
had  stopped  at  Luz  and  had  given  it  a  new  name  (Gen.  28, 
19). 

But  whatever  the  power  of  sentiment,  there  was  always 
in  Israel  a  certain  practical  judgment  which  regulated  it. 
The  great  obstacle  to  the  adoption  of  the  mode  of  govern- 
ment which  had  satisfied  the  aborigines,  was  that  Israel 


POLITY    OF    ANCIENT    HEBREWS — SULZBERGER  1 5 

was  in  its  governmental  notions  republican  and  not  mon- 
archical ;  in  its  social  views  democratic  and  not  aristocratic. 
The  Canaanite  city-states  were  founded  on  principles  which 
revolted  the   Hebrews. 

The  twelfth  chapter  of  Joshua  (vv.  9-24)  gives  us  a 
list  of  thirty-one  city-states,  each  governed  by  a  king 
(mclck)  and  the  inference  is  not  remote  that  the  cities  east 
of  the  Jordan  were  similarly  governed,  Sihon  and  Og  being 
overlords,  kings  of  the  federations  of  city-states,  each  of 
which  had  a  kinglet  of  his  own.  The  expressions  "Heshbon 
and  all  her  cities"  (Josh.  13,  17),  "the  cities  and  their 
villages"  f  Josh.  13,  23.  28)  used  of  places  east  of  Jordan 
give  support  to  this  view. 

Such  a  city-state  was  composed  in  general  of  at  least 
three  constituent  elements:  the  fortified  city  proper,  with 
walls  and  towers  of  defense;  several  neighboring  towns, 
and  a  number  of  outlying  villages.  The  fortified  city  itself 
sustained  the  relation  of  mother  (em)  to  the  neighboring 
towns  and  villages.  The  towns  were  called  daughters 
(banot),  and  the  outlying  villages  hawzuot  or  haserim. 

In  the  absence  of  powerful  kingdoms,  the  formation 
of  such  small  city-kingdoms,  or  more  properly,  district 
kingdoms,  was  inevitable.  The  relatively  small  territory  of 
fertile  land  betwen  the  Mediterranean  Sea  and  the  Eastern 
Desert  was  then,  as  now,  subject  to  incursions  from  the 
Bedouins  in  years  when  a  decreased  rainfall  narrowed  their 
grazing-ground.  Driven  westward  by  the  mere  instinct  of 
self-preservation,  they  would  swoop  down  upon  the  settled 
land  and  strip  it  bare.  The  shepherds  and  agriculturists 
had  to  take  measures  to  save  themselves.  Of  this  necessity 
the  fortified  city  was  born.  The  inhabitants  of  villages 
and  towns  were  compelled  to  have  a  protected  place  of  re- 


1 6  POLITY  OF   ANCIENT    H^BRI^VVS — SULZBERGER 

fuge  where  their  hves  and  as  much  of  their  property  as 
they  could  store  would  be  safe  against  the  maurauding 
hordes.  This  they  found  in  the  walled  city,  wherein  the 
inhabitants  of  a  district  within  easy  call  could  promptly 
gather  for  defense  against  the  dreaded  enemy. 

These  overmastering  necessities  affecting  both  sides 
created  an  irrepressible  conflict,  which  was  waged  for  ages 
and  the  memory  of  which  is  preserved  in  the  undying 
hatred  denounced  against  the  nomadic  Midianites  and 
Amalekites  (Judges  6,  i-6;  7,  23-25;  Isai.  9,  3  (4)  ;  Exod. 
17,   16;  Deut.  25,   19). 

It  is  probable  that  the  kings  of  these  numerous  city- 
states  governed  despotically  by  the  aid  of  ministers  of  their 
own  selection.  If  they  were  aided  or  restrained  by  a  con- 
siderable body  of  councillors,  representative  of  the  com- 
munity, the  evidence  of  the  fact  does  not  survive  in  our 
records. 

However  this  may  be,  the  advent  of  Israel  swept  away 
all  these  kinglets.  Whenever  a  Hebrew  army  captured  and 
occupied  a  city,  a  government  by  elders  was  at  once  estab- 
lished. 

That  this  change  was  disagreeable  to  the  aborigines 
who  continued  to  live  alongside  of  the  invaders,  is  probable. 
Of  this  state  of  feeling  there  is  perhaps  a  hint  in  the  narra- 
tive recording  Abimelech's  attainment  of  the  office  of  city- 
king  of  Shechem.  The  persuasive  argument  in  his  favor 
was  the  interrogatory:  Do  you  prefer  to  be  ruled  over  by 
seventy  or  by  one?     (Judges  9,  2). 

Such  a  disharmony  between  the  aborigines  and  the 
invaders  could  not  have  been  exceptional.  The  notes  on 
the  subject  are  too  numerous  to  be  disregarded  or  to  be 
treated  lightly,  and  they  establish  the  fact  that  the  conquest 


POLITY    OF    ANCIENT    HE;bRE;\VS — SULZBERGER  1/ 

was  partial  in  this,  that  the  aborigines  who  survived  the 
wars  Hved  peacefully  with  and  alongside  of  the  conquerors. 

Here  are  specimens  of  texts  supporting  this  view :  The 
B'ne-Judah  could  not  drive  out  the  Jebusites  from  Jeru- 
salem, but  the  Jebusites  dwell  there  with  them  to  this  day 
(Josh.  15,  63). 

The  B'ne-Benjamin  did  not  drive  out  the  Jebusites 
from  Jerusalem,  but  the  Jebusites  dwell  there  with  them  to 
this  day  (Judges  i,  21). 

Judah  could  not  drive  out  the  inhabitants  of  the  valley 
(Judges  I,  19). 

Manasseh  did  not  drive  out  the  inhabitants  of  Beth- 
shean  and  her  banot;  nor  of  Taanach  and  her  hanot,  nor 
of  Dor  and  her  hanot,  nor  of  Ibleam  and  her  hanot,  nor  of 
Megiddo  and  her  hanot,  but  the  Canaanites  remained  in 
this  district  (Judges  i,  27). 

Ephraim  did  not  drive  out  the  Canaanites  who  lived 
in  Gezer  (Judges  i,  29). 

Zebulun  did  not  drive  out  the  inhabitants  of  Kitron, 
nor  those  of  Nahalol,  but  the  Canaanites  continued  to  dwell 
with  them   (Judges   i,  30). 

Asher  did  not  drive  out  the  inhabitants  of  Acco,  nor 
those  of  Zidon,  nor  those  of  Ahlab,  nor  those  of  Achzib, 
nor  those  of  Helbah,  nor  those  of  Aphik,  nor  those  of 
Rehob;  but  the  Asherites  dwelt  among  the  Canaanites 
(Judges  I,  31-32). 

Naphtali  did  not  drive  out  the  inhabitants  of  Beth- 
Shemesh,  nor  those  of  Beth-anath,  but  he  lived  among  the 
Canaanites  who  paid  him  tribute  (Judges  i,  33). 

The  Amorites  dwelt  in  Mount  Heres,  in  Aijalon  and 
in  Shaalbim,  but  became  tributaries  (Judges  i,  35). 


l8  POUTY  OF   ANCIENT    HEBREWS — SULZBERGER 

From  this  mass  of  evidence  it  must  be  concluded  that 
the  Hebrew  conquerors  found  it  necessary  or  agreeable  to 
adopt  a  poHcy  of  conciliation  and  compromise,  in  order 
that  the  natives  who  were  either  too  strong  or  too  useful 
to  be  eliminated,  might  live  content  with  the  new  insti- 
tutions and  customs  introduced  by  the  B'ne-Israel. 

It  thus  appears  that  at  the  very  outset  of  its  national 
career,  Israel  had  to  learn  how  to  deal  wisely  and  justly 
with  the  natives,  who  had  different  notions  of  government 
and  of  religion  and  who,  by  the  advent  of  the  conquerors, 
had  practically  become  aliens  in  their  own  birthplaces. 

The  solution  of  the  difificulty,  so  far  as  governmental 
features  were  concerned,  was  found  in  the  doctrine  that 
strangers  are  entitled  not  only  to  equal  rights,  but  to 
genuine  respect  and  brotherly  aft'ection. 

Having  brought  the  Hebrews  into  contact  with  the 
natives  and  their  organized  governments,  and  having  sug- 
gested that  a  policy  prevailed  which  may  be  called  remark- 
able, if  not  unique,  for  those  times  and  climes,  we  shall 
reserve  the  detailed  consideration  of  the  subject  for  our 
next  lecture. 


II 

The  problems  which  beset  an  invading  army  are  radi- 
cally different  from  those  which  confront  a  settled  popula- 
tion. In  the  one  case  the  purpose  is  aggression,  in  the  other 
defense.  We  have  seen  that  the  Hebrew  conquerors  of 
Eastern  Palestine  had  to  face  both  kinds  of  difficulties. 
They  were  settling  in  the  east  and  conquering  in  the  west. 
Hence,  notwithstanding  the  disadvantage  plainly  accruing 
from  a  policy  of  compromise,  they  adopted  it  as  the  lesser 


POLITY   OF   AXCIENT    HEBRE:vVS — SULZBERGER  I9 

evil  and  arranged  to  allow  the  natives  to  live  with  them 
in  the  enjoyment  of  rights.  Means  to  procure  general 
favor  for  this  course  were  not  wanting.  Legend  and 
history  could  be  invoked  in  its  behalf.  The  patriarch 
Abraham  is  made  to  say  to  the  'am  ha-ares  of  the  Hittites : 
I  am  a  resident  alien  (gcr  zvc-toshab)  (Gen,  23,  4)  ;  Moses 
declares  that  he  has  been  an  alien  (ger)  in  a  foreign  land 
(ercs  nokriyah)  (Exod.  2,  22;  18,  3).  In  his  proposed 
covenant  between  Jhvh  and  Israel,  he  expressly  recognizes 
the  ahen  (gcr)  in  the  camp  (Deut.  29,  10),  and  in  his  fare- 
well address,  delivered  after  the  capture  of  the  cities  east 
of  Jordan,  he  provides  for  national  reunions  in  the  capital 
of  the  future  commonwealth,  and  includes  among  the  con- 
gregants the  alien  (gcr)  from  the  cities  (Deut.  31,  12). 
So  likewise  Joshua,  when  he  read  the  whole  law  before 
the  whole  congregation,  did  not  forget  to  procure  the  at- 
tendance of  the  gcr  (Josh.  8,  35). 

That  the  sentiment  behind  these  utterances  was  strong 
may  be  inferred  from  its  persistence  in  later  times.  David's 
friendly  relations  with  foreigners  is  frequently  alluded  to. 
There  is  no  finer  instance  of  loyal  fidelity  than  the  devotion 
of  Ittai  of  Gath,  the  captain  of  David's  body-guard,  to  his 
royal  master.  About  to  flee  from  the  west-land  in  conse- 
quence of  Absalom's  rebellion,  he  said  to  Ittai :  Why 
shoulclst  thou  an  alien  (nokri)  share  my  fallen  fortunes 
when  the  king  that  is  would  gladly  retain  thee  in  thy  office  ? 
Swearing  the  great  oath  (hai  Jhvh  zvc-hc  adoni  ha-mclck), 
Ittai  rephed :  "My  place  is  with  my  lord  the  King,  for 
death  or  for  life !"  and  David  said :  Pass  on.  Between 
these  great  souls  scant  speech  sufficed  (II  Sam.  15,  19-22). 

So  too  Solomon,  in  his  great  dedication  prayer,  re- 
membered the  nokri  of  distant  lands    (I   Kings  8,  41-43  5 


20  POLITY  OF   ANCIKNT    HEBREWS — SULZBERGER 

II  Chr.  6,  32.  33),  and  even  took  a  census  of  the  gerim  in 
the  country  which  ascertained  that  their  number  exceeded 
150,000  (II  Chr.  2,  16  (17)). 

Great  social  facts  Hke  these  necessarily  find  expression 
in  legislation,  which  is  in  the  main  the  mere  crystallization 
of  custom.  Accordingly  we  find  that  the  institution  of  the 
Sabbath  is  to  give  rest  not  only  to  Israel  but  to  the  gcr 
[who  is  in  thy  cities]  (Exod.  20,  10;  Deut.  5,  14);  or 
simply  to  the  ger  (Exod.  23,  12). 

Benevolent  provision  for  the  poor  comprehends  the 
gcr  as  well  as  the  Israelite  (Deut.  14,  28.  29;  26,  11-13). 

Oppression  of  the  ger  is  insistently  reprehended. 

"Do  not  vex  a  ger,  nor  oppress  him,  for  ye  were  gerim 
in  the  land  of  Egypt"  (Ex.  22,  20  (21)  ;  23,  9;  Lev.  19,  33). 

"The  gcr  that  dwelleth  with  you  in  your  land  ye  shall 
not  vex.  He  shall  be  to  you  as  an  ezrah  (native).  Thou 
shalt  love  him  as  thyself;  for  ye  were  gerim  in  the  land  of 
Egypt"   (Lev.  19,  33.  34;  Deut.  10,  19). 

"Thou  shalt  not  oppress  a  poor  and  needy  hired  serv- 
ant (sakir),  whether  he  be  of  thy  brethren  or  of  the  gerim 
in  thy  land  in  thy  cities.  Pay  him  his  wage  before  sun- 
down"  (Deut.  24,   14.  15). 

The  ger  was  entitled  to  the  equal  benefit  of  the  law. 

"Ye  shall  have  the  same  mishpat  for  ger  as  for  ezrah" 
(Exod.  12,  49;  Lev.  24,  22;  Num.  9,  14). 

"Hear  between  your  brethren  and  judge  righteously 
between  a  man  and  his  fellow-Israelite  or  ger"  (Deut.  i, 
16). 

"Pervert  not  the  judgment  of  the  ger  or  of  the  yatorn" 
(Deut.  24,  17). 


POLITY    OF    ANCIENT    HEBREWS — SULZBERGER  21 

The  ger  who  has  killed  a  man  unwittingly  is  entitled 
to  the  benefit  of  the  city  of  refuge. 

"The  cities  of  refuge  are  for  the  B'ne-Israel  and  for 
the  gcr  we-tosliab  among  them"   (Numb.  35,  15;  Josh.  20, 

9)- 

And  though  in  one  respect  the  ger  was  the  inferior 
of  the  Hebrew,  in  that  the  latter  was  not  to  be  held  as  a 
bond-slave,  while  the  gcr  zvc-toshab  might  be  (Lev.  25,  45), 
yet  the  latter  had  opportunities  for  social  advancement. 
Some  of  them  had  actually  bought  impoverished  Israelites 
as  bond-slaves,  and  were  legally  entitled  to  hold  them, 
unless  redeemed  for  full  value  (Lev.  25,  47-49). 

That  the  policy  of  incorporating  the  natives  of  the 
land  into  the  body  of  the  new  state  met  with  opposition  and 
was  adopted  with  reluctance  is  highly  probable. 

Entering  the  trans-Jordanic  country  with  peaceful 
intention,  Moses  found  none  but  enemies.  Edom  repelled 
him,  while  Sihon  and  Og  insisted  on  battle  to  the  death. 
Moab's  pretended  amity  covered  undying  hatred  and  the 
fraternization  at  Shittim  caused  the  leaders  of  the  people 
to  become  traitors  to  Jhvh's  cause  (Numb.  25,  1-5)  and 
threatened  the  disruption  of  Israel. 

Small  wonder,  then,  that  the  policy  of  extinction 
should  find  sturdy  advocates.  The  foundation  stone  of  the 
new  republic,  the  worship  of  Jhvh,  had,  in  the  friendly 
intimacy  of  Israel  with  the  natives,  been  forgotten  and 
Baal-Peor  seemed  triumphant.  Stern  measures  of  repres- 
sion were  necessary  and  were  executed  by  the  militant 
priest  Phineas,  with  the  provost-marshals  (shophctim) 
(Num.   25,   5-9). 

If  the  principle  of  the  new  state  were  to  be  firmly 
established,  a  Pontiff  was  necessary  to  guard  the  national 


22  POUTV  OP   ANCIENT    HEBRIJWS — SULZBERGER 

religion.  Phineas  was  chosen  for  the  office  (Num.  25, 
11-13),  the  Levite  with  an  eye  single  for  the  cause,  "who 
did  not  acknowledge  his  brethren  or  know  his  own  chil- 
dren," if  they  were  unfaithful  to  it  (Deut.  33,  9). 

When  Joshua  from  the  east  bank  of  Jordan  looked  on 
Jericho,  the  whole  stupendous  problem  must  have  weighed 
him  down.  There  was  much  in  favor  of  extreme  measures 
and  much  against  them.  Even  in  the  city  he  was  about  to 
attack  he  had  found  friends  among  the  natives,  and  doubt- 
less there  were  such  everywhere. 

They  might  be  won  to  the  side  of  Jhvh.  The  spies 
returned  had  but  just  brought  him  Rahab's  words :  "Jhvh, 
your  God,  is  God  in  heaven  above  and  in  earth  beneath." 

In  the  end  Joshua  decided  in  favor  of  the  milder 
course.  He  must  have  believed  that  the  Jhvh  religion 
would,  under  the  guidance  of  its  sturdy  priest,  make  its 
way  and  hold  its  own.  At  all  events,  after  the  bloody  days 
of  Jericho  and  Ai,  he  made  a  treaty  with  Gibeon,  the  great 
city  (Josh.  9,  15;  10,  2),  and  the  new  poHcy  was,  for  weal 
or  for  woe,  initiated.  History  records  that  the  Gibeonites 
became  servants  in  the  Temple  and  for  the  altar  (Josh.  9, 
27),  and  thus  this  first  treaty  was  an  auspicious  beginning 
of  the  peace  policy,  a  bloodless  victory  for  Jhvh,  which 
might  well  inspire  hope  for  the  future. 

While  Joshua  was  thus  reorganizing  his  city-states,  he 
took  care  to  provide  that  the  national  idea  should  be  wor- 
thily represented.  The  ohcl-mo'ed,  the  tent-temple  of 
Israel,  was  instantly  set  up  at  Shiloh  (Josh.  18,  i ;  Jer.  7, 
12)  ;  there  the  tribes  were  gathered  to  attest  their  allegiance 
to  the  cause  of  Jhvh  ;  there  abode  the  national  priest. 
From  thence  and  succeeding  ecclesiastical  capitals  radiated 
the  influences  which  were  gradually  to  bring  the  city-states 


POLITY    OF   ANCIENT    HEBRElWS — SULZBERGER  23 

into  harmony  with  the  Hebrew  ideals  of  rehgion  and  gov- 
ernment and  were  finally  to  transform  the  federation  of 
small  states  into  one  unified  kingdom  for  the  north  and 
another  unified  kingdom  for  the  south. 

These  city-states  (called  for  short,  cities)  each  in- 
cluded at  least  one  city,  several  towns  and  villages,  together 
with  fields,  which  were  owned  by  the  residents  of  the  city 
and  its  dependencies.  Under  the  policy  adopted,  these  were 
not  all  Israelites,  but  a  certain  residue  of  the  natives  re- 
mained in  their  old  homes. 

These  city-states  all  existed  before  the  Hebrews  ar- 
rived. Each  had  its  king  and  his  ministers,  who  ruled  the 
little  kingdom.  The  Hebrews  at  once  abolished  the  kingly 
office  and  placed  the  government  in  the  hands  of  a  council, 
substantially  representative  in  character.  They  did  more. 
They  established  a  national  priesthood  at  Shiloh,  whose 
office  was  to  bring  the  law  of  the  constituent  city-states, 
or  city-districts,  into  harmony  with  each  other  and  with  the 
national  and  religious  customs  and  ideals  of  the  Hebrew 
people.  The  difficulties  in  the  way  were  enormous.  A 
landless  people  were  to  learn  that  the  military  government 
of  a  camp  was  quite  unadapted  to  the  rule  of  the  country 
they  had  conquered.  They  had  to  realize  that  local  gov- 
ernments were  necessary;  that  each  of  these  had  a  center 
or  quasi-capital,  and  that  from  these  quasi-capitals  (the 
fortified  cities)  would  radiate  opinions  which  had  to  be 
reckoned  with.  How  well  they  learned  the  lesson  the 
literature  shows,  since  it  indicates  that  the  people's  concep- 
tion of  the  state  was  that  it  was  an  aggregation  of  cities, 
and  that  the  word  "cities  of  the  land"  bfecame  a  mere  term 
for  the  land  itself. 


24  POLITY  OF   ANCIENT    HEBREWS — SULZBERGER 

Jephthah  was  buried  in  his  native  state  of  Gilead 
(precisely  where  we  do  not  know),  but  the  historian  in 
stating  this  fact,  simply  says :  Jephthah  was  buried  in  the 
"cities"   (state)   of  Gilead   (Judges  12,  7). 

In  the  great  civil  war  with  the  B'ne-Benjamin  the  lat- 
ter hastened  to  the  rendezvous  from  the  "cities"  (Judges 
20,  14)  ;  and  when  peace  was  restored  they  returned  to  their 
cities  (Judges  21,  23).  To  hail  the  triumphant  David  the 
women  came  from  all  the  "cities"  of  Israel  (I  Sam.  18,  6), 
and  when  Asa  of  Judah  formed  alliance  with  Benhadad  of 
Damascus,  the  latter  attacked  the  "cities"  of  Israel  (I 
Kings  15,  20). 

When  David  was  arranging  to  be  anointed  King  of 
Judah,  he  and  his  retinue  settled  in  the  Hebron  "cities." 

At  the  secession  of  Northern  Israel  under  Jeroboam, 
the  B'nc-Israel  that  dwelt  in  the  "cities"  of  Judah  remained 
faithful  to  Rehoboam   (I  Kings   12,   17). 

When  in  722  B.  C.  Sargon  overcame  Israel,  he  settled 
foreigners  in  Samaria  and  they  dwelt  in  its  "cities"  (II 
Kings    17,   24.   26). 

When  Josiah  introduced  his  reforms,  he  put  down  the 
high  places  in  the  "cities"  of  Judah  (II  Kings  23,  5)  and 
in  the  "cities"  of  Samaria  (II  Kings  23,  19). 

Isaiah  in  his  fortieth  chapter  addresses  the  nation  as 
"cities"  of  Judah  (Isai.  40,  9)  and  does  the  like  in  44,  26. 

Jeremiah  does  the  same  uniformly.  "Publish  against 
Jerusalem,  that  watchers  come  from  a  far  country  and  give 
out  their  voice  against  the  "cities"  of  Judah"  (Jer.  4,  16). 

"I  shall  cause  to  cease  from  the  "cities"  of  Judah  and 
from  the  streets  of  Jerusalem,  the  voice  of  mirth  ....  and 
the  land  shall  be  desolate"  (Jer.  7,  34;  33,  10). 


POLITY   OF   ANCIENT    HEBREWS — SULZBERGER  25 

"I  will  make  Jerusalem  heaps  ....  and  the  "cities"  of 
Judah  desolate"  (Jer.  9,  10  (11);  34,  22). 

"The  noise  of  the  bruit  is  come  ....  to  make  the 
"cities"  of  Judah  desolate"   (Jer.  10,  22). 

"Seest  thou  not  what  they  do  in  the  "cities"  of  Judah 
and  in  the  streets  of  Jerusalem?"  (Jer.  7,  17). 

Jhvh  said  unto  me,  Proclaim  all  these  words  in  the 
"cities"  of  Judah  and  in  the  streets  of  Jerusalem"  (Jer.  11, 
6). 

"Then  shall  the  "cities"  of  Judah  and  inhabitants  of 
Jerusalem  go  and  cry  unto  the  gods  unto  whom  they  ofifer 
incense"   (Jer.  11,  12). 

"Jhvh,  the  God  of  Israel,  saith  unto  me :  Take  the 
wine  cup  of  this  fury  at  my  hand,  and  cause  all  the  nations 
(goyim)  to  whom  I  send  thee  to  drink  it: 

"Jerusalem  and  the  "cities"  of  Judah  and  the  kings 
thereof  and  the  sarim  thereof  ....  "  (Jer.  25,  15.  18). 

"Thus  saith  Jhvh  :  Stand  in  the  court  of  Jhvh's  house 
and  speak  to  all  the  "cities"  of  Judah  which  come  to  wor- 
ship in  Jhvh's  house  ....  "  (Jer.  26,  2). 

"In  the  fifth  year  of  Jehoiakim,  the  son  of  Josiah,  king 
of  Judah,  in  the  ninth  month,  they  proclaimed  a  som  (con- 
vocation, fast  ?)  before  Jhvh  to  all  the  people  in  Jeru- 
salem, and  to  all  the  people  that  came  from  the  "cities"  of 
Judah  to  Jerusalem"   (Jer.  36.  9). 

"Go  back  also  to  Gedaliah,  the  son  of  Ahikam,  the  son 
of  Shaphan,  whom  the  king  of  Babylon  hath  made  governor 
in  the  "cities"  of  Judah  ....  "  (Jer.  40,  5). 

Thus  saith  Jhvh  of  hosts,  the  God  of  Israel :  Ye  have 
seen  all  the  evil  that  I  have  brought  upon  Jerusalem  and 
upon  all  the  "cities"  of  Judah  ....  "  (Jer.  44,  2). 


26  POLITY  OP   ANCIENT    HEBREWS — SULZBERGER 

"My  fury  and  mine  anger  was  poured  forth  and  was 
kindled  in  the  "cities"  of  Judah  and  in  the  streets  of  Jeru- 
salem   ....    "    (Jer.   44,  6.    17). 

Ezekiel  speaks  of  the  land  of  Israel  in  the  same 
fashion  : 

"The  inhabitants  of  the  "cities"  of  Israel  shall  go 
forth  ....  "  (Ezek.  30,  9). 

Zechariah  characterizes  the  southern  kingdom  simi- 
larly : 

"How  long  wilt  thou  withhold  mercy  on  Jerusalem  and 
from  the  "cities"  of  Judah   ....   "   (Zech.  i,   12). 

From  the  very  beginning  of  the  conquest  this  notion 
that  the  state  is  only  a  bundle  of  "cities"  (city-districts) 
had  taken  root. 

In  reading  the  book  of  Joshua,  one  is  struck  with  the 
fact  that  the  number  of  cities  awarded  to  the  several  tribes 
is  so  large  that  the  territory  represented  by  them  and  their 
dependencies  practically  covers  the  settled  part  of  the 
country  and  is  sufficient  to  contain  the  whole  population. 
Reuben  is  credited  with  thirteen  cities,  whose  names  are 
given,  and  with  a  group  without  names  but  described  as 
"all  the  cities  of  the  plain"  (Josh.  13,  17-21). 

Gad  has  four  cities  named,  plus  "all  the  cities  of 
Gilead"   (Josh.  13,  30.  31). 

Judah  has  one  hundred  and  twelve  cities  and  their 
villages    (Josh.    15,    21-62). 

Benjamin   has   twenty-six    (Josh.    18,    12-28). 

Zebulun  twelve  (Josh.  19,  15). 

Issachar  sixteen   (Josh.   19,  22). 

Asher  twenty-two   (Josh.   19,  30). 

Nai)htali   nineteen    (Josh.    19,   38). 

Dan  eighteen   (josh.   19.  41-47). 


POLITY   OF    ANCIENT    HEBREWS — SULZBERGER  2/ 

The  number  awarded  to  Western  Manasseh  and  to 
Ephraim  is  not  stated,  but  even  without  them  and  without 
the  groups  whose  numbers  are  not  given,  there  are  more 
than  three  hundred  cities,  each  having  its  dependencies  and 
its  outhers.  "These  cities  were  fenced  with  high  walls, 
gates  and  bars"    (Deut.  3,  5;   i,  28). 

In  time  the  idea  of  the  state  as  "cities"  was  expressed 
even  more  significantly  by  the  word  sha'ar,  which  from 
meaning  the  gate  of  a  fortified  city,  came  to  signify  the 
court  which  was  held  at  the  gate,  then  the  city  itself,  and 
finally  all  the  dwelling  places  of  the  people  everywhere 
(Exod.  20,  10;  Deut.  5,  14;  6,  9;  11.  20;  12,  15.  17.  18; 
14,  27;  15,  7;  16,  5.  11;  31,  12).  Indeed,  so  extended  had 
become  the  idea  attached  to  the  word  that  it  was  applied 
even  to  an  encampment  composed  only  of  tents  (Exod.  32, 
26.   27). 

The  existence  of  these  pre-Israelite  city-states,  and 
their  persistence  under  the  Hebrews  as  city-districts  being 
assumed,  it  becomes  important  to  ascertain  what  were  their 
powers,  their  practical  jurisdiction,  before  the  conquest  and 
after  the  conquest. 

From  pre-Hebraic  times  we  have  two  examples, 
Shechem  and  Gibeon.  Shechem  lies  in  the  valley  between 
Ebal  and  Gerizim,  It  is  to-day  the  sacred  city  of  the  Sa- 
maritan sectaries,  the  seat  of  the  government  of  the  prov- 
ince, and  the  connecting-link  of  the  telegraphic  systems  of 
the  east  and  west  of  Jordan.  Its  history  extends  back  into 
remote  antiquity.  Abraham  and  Jacob  visited  it,  and  all 
Israel  chose  it  for  the  inaugural  service  on  taking  possession 
of  the  Promised  Land. 

Gibeon,  too,  has  its  story.  It  was  the  first  of  the 
Palestinian  cities  to  see  that  the  countrv  was  doomed  to 


28  POLITY  OF   ANCIENT    HEBRIjWS — SULZBERGER 

succumb  to  its  Hebrew  invaders.  It  possessed  an  early 
Hebrew  temple  (bet-elohim),  in  which  adherents  of  the 
native  religion  agreed  to  serve  Jhvh;  and  it  gave  the  final 
touch  to  the  tragedy  of  Saul's  career  by  its  insistence  on  the 
law  of  blood-guilt  for  Nob's  murdered  priests,  which 
culminated  in  the  gruesome  tenderness  of  Rizpah  (H  Sam. 
21,    i-ii). 

Shechem,  the  Hivite,  the  son  of  the  nasi  of  the  city- 
state  of  Shechem,  loved  Jacob's  daughter  Dinah  and  began 
to  treat  with  her  people,  the  B'ne  Jacob,  in  order  to  arrange 
a  marriage.  The  narrative  indicates  that  up  to  that  time 
there  was  no  right  of  connubium  between  the  two  contract- 
ing powers.  Such  a  right,  general  to  both  parties,  was  now 
proposed  by  Hamor,  the  nasi  of  the  Hivites,  coupled  with 
the  privilege  of  settling  the  country,  dwelling  and  trading 
therein,  acquiring  lands  and  ultimately  becoming  one  with 
the  natives.  The  B'ne  Jacob  insisted  on  certain  indispensa- 
ble terms,  to  which  the  nasi  and  his  son  were  willing  to 
agree.  At  this  point  it  is  seen  that  the  nasi  and  his  son  had 
not  the  power  to  bind  their  people  without  obtaining  the 
consent  of  the  council. 

Hamor  and  Shechem  duly  proposed  the  treaty  at  "the 
gate  of  their  city,"  to  the  council  there  met,  the  anshe  ha-'ir. 
The  latter  accepted  the  terms  and  the  part  to  be  performed 
by  the  Shechemites  was  duly  carried  out.  The  treaty,  how- 
ever, failed  on  account  of  the  vengeful  wrath  of  Simeon 
and  Levi   (Gen.  34,  8-27). 

The  second  example  of  inter-national  action  by  one 
of  the  pre-Hebraic  city-states  is  the  case  of  Gibeon.  In 
Joshua's  plan  of  campaign  this  place  was  marked  out  for 
early  attack.  Its  capture  would  have  had  an  enormous 
effect  in  depressing  the  spirit  of  the  natives.     It  was  the 


POLITY   OF   ANCIENT   HEBREWS — SULZBERGER  29 

capital  city  of  an  exceptionally  important  district,  which 
included  three  other  cities,  besides  the  towns,  villages,  and 
fields  dependent  on  and  appurtenant  to  each  of  them.  The 
king  of  the  district  had  his  royal  court  there;  it  was  an 
'ir-mclukah.  Its  magnates  showed  their  vigilance  and 
ability.  When  they  saw  that  the  resistance  of  Jericho  and 
Ai  were  merely  futile  and  that  Joshua  had  relentlessly  pun- 
ished those  unfortunates,  they  determined  that  peace  at  any 
price  was  the  wise  policy. 

The  report  (Josh.  9.  3-27)  tells,  in  excellent  narrative 
fashion,  how  the  emissaries  of  the  zckcnim  of  Gibeon  dis- 
guised themselves  so  as  to  appear  to  have  come  from  a  far 
country,  how  they  entered  Joshua's  camp  at  Gilgal,  how 
they  declared  that  they  had  heard  of  the  wonderful  exodus 
from  Egypt  and  of  the  great  victories  of  Israel  over  Sihon 
and  Og  in  Eastern  Palestine  (carefully  concealing  their 
knowledge  of  Joshua's  late  victories),  and  how  their  mag- 
nates (sekcnim  and  yashebim)  (not  a  word  about  their 
nidck)  had  urged  that  an  alliance  with  the  Hebrews  was  a 
desirable  and  necessary  thing. 

Captivated  by  these  flattering  tales.  Joshua  and  his 
councillors  omitted  to  consult  the  oracle,  allowed  them- 
selves to  be  tricked  into  a  treaty  of  alliance,  and  ratified  it 
by  the  oaths  of  the  nesi'hn  of  the  'edah  (the  twelve  princes 
of  the  Privy  Council  of  Israel). 

A  few  days  later  the  truth  leaked  out.  The  worn-out 
and  weary  wanderers  lived  close  by, — in  the  cities  of  Gibeon 
and  its  dependencies,  Kephirah,  Beeroth,  and  Kiriath- 
jearim.  The  conquering  host  was  naturally  indignant  at 
the  deceit.  The  general  assembly  of  Israel  {kol  ha- edah) 
murmured  at  the  lenity  of  the  terms  accorded,  but  the 
nesi'im  had  ratified  the  treaty,  had  given  their  word.    Per- 


30  POLITY  OF   ANCIENT    HEBREWS — SULZBERGER 

sonal  and  national  honor  required  that  it  should  be  faith- 
fully carried  out. 

The  incident  of  Gibeon  left  an  abiding  impression  on 
the  mind  of  the  Hebrew  people.  The  old  narrative  (Josh. 
9,  23-27)  records  that  Joshua,  while  adhering  strictly  to  the 
terms  of  the  treaty,  found  a  means  of  punishing  the  Gibeon- 
ite  magnates  who  had  tricked  him  into  it.  He  sentenced 
them  to  become  hewers  of  wood  and  drawers  of  water  for 
the  bet-elohim.  They  were  glad  that  things  were  no  worse, 
and  the  story  ends  by  telling  that  they  at  once  took  up  their 
work  which  they  continue  to  perform  "even  unto  this  day." 

The  city,  however,  retained  its  importance  in  the 
subsequent  history  of  Israel.  It  is  probable  that  Nob. 
where  David,  fleeing  from  Saul,  was  succored,  was  either 
one  of  the  cities  of  the  city-state  of  Gibeon,  or  perhaps  was 
the  name  of  the  priests'  quarter  of  the  city  itself   (I  Sam. 

21,  1-9),  just  as  the  quarter  of  Jerusalem  in  which  Huldah 
lived  was  called  by  its  own  name,  the  Mishnch  (II  Kings 

22,  14;  Zeph.  I,  10).  The  dreadful  cruelty  of  Saul  in 
slaughtering  the  priests  for  their  innocent  aid  to  David  (I 
Sam.  22,  9-23)  was  long  remembered.  Indeed,  it  is  record- 
ed that  in  David's  reign  JnvH  visited  Israel  with  a  famine, 
because  this  blood-guilt  had  been  in  no  wise  atoned  for,  and 
that  in  order  to  regain  Divine  favor,  the  Gibeonites  were 
besought  to  accept  compensation  or  wergild  (kopher)  for 
their  murdered  kinsmen,  that  they  disdainfully  spurned  this 
offer,  but  finally  consented  to  accept  the  death  of  seven  sons 
of  Saul  in  satisfaction  of  the  whole  blood-guilt  (II  Sam. 
21,    i-io). 

In  the  time  of  Solomon  it  was  the  great  bamah  (high 
place)  whither  Solomon  went  to  make  a  great  sacrificial 
feast  and  where  he  had  the  dream  in  which,  asked  by  Jhvh 


POLITY    O^   ANCIENT    HEBREWS — SULZBERGER  3 1 

what  he  wanted,  he  prayed  for  wisdom  to  do  justice   (I 
Kings  3,  4-15). 

The  story  was  finally  amplified  and  embellished.  The 
sacrosanct  oliel  mo'ed  which  Moses  had  made  in  the  wilder- 
ness was  supposed  to  have  been  set  up  at  Gibeon  (I  Chron. 
16,  39).  Of  course  the  legend  was  mere  poetry.  History 
establishes  that  the  ohel  mo'ed  was  at  Shiloh  (Josh.  i8,  i.  8; 
19,  51;  22,  12;  Judges  21,  19). 

These  two  instances  in  which  city-states  exercised  the 
highest  national  functions,  namely  dealing  with  foreign 
powers,  are  both  pre-Israelite.  The  absence  of  such  ex- 
amples in  Hebrew  times  is  persuasive  evidence  of  the  firm- 
ness with  which  the  national  idea  had  taken  root.  A  re- 
markable feature  in  both  cases  is  that  the  dominant  power 
is  ascribed  to  the  council.  The  king  or  chief  in  the  one 
case  can  do  nothing  by  himself ;  in  the  other  case  he  is  not 
even  mentioned.  That  this  accurately  represents  pre- 
Israelite  conditions  is  highly  improbable.  The  abundance 
of  kinglets  to  which  we  have  before  alluded,  speaks  loudly 
against  it.  Moreover,  there  is  a  hint  in  the  story  of 
Abimelech  with  relation  to  this  same  city-state  of  Shechem, 
which  gives  weight  to  the  theory  that  the  king  had  great 
power.  Gideon,  the  chief  of  the  clan  of  Abiezer,  and  the 
great  man  of  Manasseh,  died  leaving  seventy  sons  by  his 
wives,  and  one  son  (Abimelech)  by  a  Shechemite  concubine. 
In  the  natural  order  of  events  a  legitimate  son  would  have 
succeeded  to  the  chieftainship,  under  whose  sway  stood, 
among  others,  the  ancient  city-state  of  Shechem.  That  its 
great  families  should  recall  with  regret  the  good  old  times 
before  the  Hebrew  conquest,  when  the  city-state  of 
Shechem  was  an  independent  sovereignty,  of  which  the  city 
was  the  capital,  was  but  natural.    Now  they  owed  allegiance 


32  POIvlTY  OF   ANCIENT    HEBREWS — SULZBERGER 

to   the   overlord,    Alanasseh's   chief,    whose   capital   was   at 
Ophrah. 

With  the  instincts  of  an  able  demagogue,  Abimelech 
intrigued  to  fan  the  flame  of  Shechemite  discontent  by 
comparing  the  present  tributary  condition  with  the  former 
independence.  His  chief  assault  was  directed  against  the 
leading  feature  of  Hebrew  polity,  the  great  council  of 
seventy.  He  made  it  clear  to  the  municipal  council  (anslie 
Shcchcm,  ha'ale  Shechem)  that  any  of  the  legitimate  heirs 
of  Gideon  would  be  faithful  to  this  institution,  and  his 
spokesman  summed  up  the  argument  in  his  favor  by  the 
question:  Do  you  prefer  to  be  ruled  over  by  seventy  or  by 
one?  It  turned  the  tide;  Shechem  revolted,  and  its  mag- 
nates enthroned  Abimelech  as  king  (Judges  9,  1-6). 

One  cannot  read  this  story  without  suspecting  that  the 
accounts  of  pre-Israelite  councils  at  Shechem  and  at  Gibeon 
are  deficient  in  not  attributing  to  the  kings  of  those  states 
the  power  which  was  theirs  under  the  ancient  Constitutions. 
Nor  is  the  omission  to  be  wondered  at.  When  the  accounts 
were  written,  these  numerous  independent  little  kings  had 
long  disappeared  and  been  forgotten.  We  know,  too,  that 
the  knowledge  of  the  early  writers  concerning  the  remote 
past  was  defective.  You  will  recall  the  fact  that  at  least  one 
of  the  ancient  scribes  naively  believed  that  before  the  insti- 
tution of  the  Kingdom  there  was  no  law  at  all.  To  use  his 
own  quaintly  simple  words :  "In  those  days  there  was  no 
king  in  Israel;  every  man  did  that  which  was  right  in  his 
own  eyes"  (Judges  17,  6;  21,  25). 

Before  leaving  this  subject  of  international  dealings  by 
pre-Israelite  city-states,  it  may,  for  the  sake  of  complete- 
ness, be  well  to  allude  to  the  negotiations  between  the  B'ne- 
Heth  and  Abraham.    It  is  true  that  the  narrative  appears  to 


POLITY   OF    ANCIENT    HEBREWS — SULZBERGER  33 

concern  a  larger  nation  than  is  included  in  a  city-state,  and 
that  the  council  is  not  called  sckcnim  nor  be'alim,  nor  anshe 
ha-'ir,  nor  ziknc  ha-'ir,  but  has  the  larger  title  of  'am  ha- 
arcs,  which  designates  a  national  council.  On  the  other 
hand,  we  know  that  the  great  Hittite  empire  was  in  the 
north,  and  that  the  section  of  it  with  which  Abraham  dealt 
must  have  been  relatively  small.  Hebron  was  the  capital, 
and  in  connection  with  this  place  there  survives  in  the 
records  one  reminiscent  note  which  seems  to  place  it  on  a 
parity  with  Gibeon,  which,  as  we  have  seen,  was  a  larger 
city-state  than  ordinary,  was,  in  fact,  a  league  of  cities. 

When  David  believed  that  his  time  had  come  to  obtain 
the  chieftainship  of  Judah,  he  consulted  the  oracle,  was 
afifirmed  in  his  belief  and  was  directed  to  go  to  Hebron. 
He,  together  with  all  his  train,  went  up  and  dwelt  in  the 
"cities"  of  Hebron  (H  Sam.  2,  1-3).  This  passage  would 
seem  to  indicate  that  Hebron  had  been  for  long  the  capital 
of  a  larger  city-state,  composed  of  a  league  of  cities  with 
their  appurtenant  towns,  villages,  and  fields. 

When  Sarah  died  at  Hebron,  Abraham  desired  to  ob- 
tain a  burying-place  of  his  own.  It  would  seem,  that  ac- 
cording to  the  customary  law,  an  alien  {gcr  zvc-toshab) 
could  not  acquire  an  indefeasible  permanent  estate  in  land. 
He  therefore  applied  to  the  council  for  the  grant  of  an 
exceptional  privilege,  enabling  him  to  accomplish  his  pur- 
pose. He  was  recognized  as  an  important  power :  "Thou 
art  a  ncsi  elohim  (a  prince  of  God)  in  our  midst."  Every 
one  was  willing  to  tender  a  burial-place  for  Sarah's  body. 
But  this  was  not  what  Abraham  wished.  He  wanted  a 
permanent  estate  {ahuzzah)  and  this  the  council  finally 
accorded  to  him. 


34  POLITY  OF   ANCIENT    HEBREWS — SULZBERGER 

The  proceedings  were  in  public  session  of  the  council, 
were  presided  over  by  Ephron,  and  were  highly  polite  and 
ceremonious.  Abraham  urged  his  request,  the  President 
answered,  the  matter  was  agreed  on,  and  the  treaty  was 
solemnly  consummated  in  the  presence  of  the  whole  council 
(Gen.  23,  3-20). 

Whether  this  Hittite  example  relates  to  one  of  these 
district-states,  may  remain  doubtful,  but  the  other  instances 
that  have  been  given  are  sufficient  to  show  the  sovereign 
character  of  these  city-states,  and  to  point  out  what  radical 
changes  were  necessary,  if  they  were  ever  to  constitute  a 
national  federal  republic. 

An  early  example  of  the  process  is  given  us  in  the 
case  of  the  city-state  of  Ophrah.  It  had  fallen  to  the  share 
of  Manasseh,  and  the  ruling  clan  of  that  tribe,  Abiezer, 
was  seated  there.  The  chief  was  Joash,  the  head  of  the 
clan.  From  time  immemorial  the  little  state  had  had  its 
Baal-altar  with  the  Asherah  pertaining  to  it.  Word  came 
through  a  nahi  or  mal'ak  Jhvh,  that  the  worship  of  Jhvh 
must  now  be  substituted.  To  that  end  it  was  necessary  to 
cast  down  the  Baal  altar,  cut  down  the  Asherah,  and  build 
an  altar  to  Jhvh  on  the  height  called  Rosh  ha-ma'oz. 

The  chieftain  Joash  had  carried  out  the  policy  of 
conciliation  all  too  well.  Baal  still  reigned  supreme  in 
Ophrah  and  Joash  lacked  either  the  will  or  the  force  to 
strengthen  the  cause  of  the  Hebrew  nation  and  its  religion. 

The  task  of  making  good  his  delinquencies  was  im- 
posed on  his  son  Gideon.  When  the  message  came  he  re- 
ceived it  with  the  usual  profession  of  modesty  which  He- 
brew writers  attribute  to  those  born  to  greatness :  "My 
cleph  (clan)  is  lowly  in  Manasseh  and  I  am  the  pigmy  in 
my  bct-ah;"  just  as  Saul,  when  apprised  of  his  selection  as 


POLITY   OF    ANCIE;NT    HEBREWS — SULZBE;rGER  35 

King  of  Israel,  protested :  "Am  not  I  a  Benjamite,  of  the 
smallest  of  Israel's  tribes?  and  is  not  my  clan  {mish- 
pahah)  the  puniest  of  all  the  clans  of  that  tribe?"  (I  Sam. 
9,  21).  To  Moses  in  the  early  age  (Exod.  3,  11;  4,  10), 
and  to  Jeremiah  in  the  later  times  (Jer,  i,  6),  similar  mod- 
est declaimers  are  credited.  Gideon's  scruples  were,  how- 
ever, overcome,  and  he  accepted  the  perilous  post. 
Knowing  that  he  would  place  himself  in  opposition  to  the 
authorities,  whose  chief  was  his  own  father,  he  determined 
to  initiate  the  revolution  at  night.  With  the  help  of  ten 
trusty  men,  he  cast  down  the  Baal  altar,  cut  down  the 
Ashcrah,  and  burned  the  wood  thereof  in  ofifering  an  'olah 
upon  the  Jhvh  altar  which  he  built. 

In  the  morning  the  city  was  in  commotion.  The 
anshc  ha-'ir  promptly  viewed  the  situation,  and  the  question 
ran:  Who  is  guilty?  Doubtless  the  oracle  was  in  some 
form  consulted  (wayebakeshu)  and  the  judgment  was 
pronounced  (wayomru)  :  Gideon  ben  Joash  has  done  this 
deed. 

The  anshe  ha-'ir  demanded  of  Joash  that  he  surrender 
his  son  for  execution. 

This  was  in  strict  conformity  with  the  law  of  the 
ancient  city-state,  which  gave  its  authorities  the  power  to 
vindicate  the  religion  of  the  state.  This  old  law  survives 
in  the  records  in  Deut.  21,  18-21.  It  is  the  law  commonly 
called  that  of  the  stubborn  and  rebellious  son,  which  pro- 
vides that  the  delinquent's  parents  shall  bring  him  to  the 
sikne  ha-'ir  at  the  gate  (v.  19),  and  that  the  latter  (anshe 
ha-'ir,  v.  21)  shall  stone  him.  The  details  of  the  examina- 
tion of  this  interesting  and  little-understood  law  are  re- 
served for  further  consideration,  when  we  come  to  review 


36  POLITY  OF    ANCIENT    HEBREWS — SULZBERGER 

the  remnants  of  the  ::ikne  ha-'ir  code  still  preserved  in  the 
Pentateuch. 

In  Gideon's  case  there  was  an  additional  reason  for 
this  demand  upon  his  father  Joash.  The  latter  was  not  a 
mere  member  of  the  council,  but  its  chief.  In  no  other 
way  can  certain  expressions  of  the  text  be  properly  con- 
strued. It  is  Joash  who  is  custodian  of  Baal's  altar ;  it  is 
from  his  cattle  that  the  Jhvh  sacrifice  is  culled;  it  is  his 
opposition  to  the  Jhvh  altar  that  is  feared,  and  it  is  in 
subordination  to  him  that  the  other  members  of  the  anshe 
ha-'ir  stand  (act  or  serve)  {'amdu  'alatv),  just  as  ha-'am 
stood  in  the  court  of  Moses  {zvaya'amod  ha-'am  'al 
Mosheh)  (Exod.  18,  13),  as  Eglon's  court  councillors  stood 
with  him  {kol  ha-'omdim  'alazv)  (Judges  3,  19),  and  as  the 
angels  in  the  court  of  Heaven  stood  to  Jhvh's  right  and 
left  {'omcd  'alaw)   (I  Kings  22,  19). 

Joash  met  his  fellow  councillors  with  a  flat  denuncia- 
tion of  their  action.  This,  he  said,  is  a  contest  between 
gods.  Baal  has  been  worsted.  He  could  not  save  himself, 
will  your  aid  save  him?  Beware,  the  mighty  power  that 
overthrew  Baal  will  punish  your  puny  efforts  with  instant 
death,  and  will  save  my  son  from  any  harm  that  Baal  can 
do. 

The  council  acquiesced  and  Gideon  became  the  chief 
with  the  epithet  of  Jernh-haal  attached  to  his  name,  in 
memory  of  his  victory  over  the  deposed  god  (Judges  6, 
8.  II.  24-32). 

We  see  here  the  nation  in  the  making.  It  adopts  the 
city-state  without  its  king,  but  gives  the  power  to  the  coun- 
cil, which  in  this  instance  assumes  to  act  as  the  highest 
ecclesiastical  authority,  doubtless  in  strict  accord  with  pre- 
Israelite  practice.     Every  autonomous  district  had  its  own 


POI.ITY   OF    ANCIENT    HEBREWS — SULZBERGER  37 

king  and  its  own  god,  and  the  sovereign  authority  was  not 
differentiated  into  mihtary  and  civil  jurisdiction,  nor  sub- 
divided into  legislative,  executive,  and  judicial  function. 
The  genius  of  the  people  was  local  and  its  outlook  narrow. 
There  were  then,  as  now,  ambitious  souls  dreaming  of 
world-conquest,  but  they  lived  in  Egypt  and  by  the  Euphra- 
tes and  not  in  Palestine.  The  entrance  of  the  Hebrews 
into  the  country  brought  a  rush  of  new  ideas,  political  and 
religious.  Palestine  was  to  become  one  great  state  with 
one  only  God.  Local  sovereignties  and  religions  were  to  be 
extirpated,  or  at  least  fused  with  institutions  embodying 
these  loftier  conceptions. 

We  have  seen  in  the  case  of  Gideon  how  this  national 
spirit  made  its  way  in  one  quarter.  There  is  no  reason  to 
doubt  that  the  movement  throughout  the  whole  country  was 
conducted  on  similar  lines.  The  presence  and  vigor  of  a 
national  supervising  body  being  granted,  all  the  rest  natur- 
ally  follows. 

Indeed,  it  is  Gideon  himself  who  energetically  promotes 
the  further  progress  of  nationalization. 

As  this  phase  of  his  career  brings  out  clearly  the 
functions  of  the  zikne  ha-'ir  of  two  cities  east  of  Jordan  in 
Hebrew  times,  further  description  thereof  may  conven- 
iently be  reserved  for  the  next  lecture. 


Ill 

Gideon,  the  champion  of  Jhvh,  w^as  the  chief  man  in 
Manasseh.  He  had  attained  a  recognized  position  by  his 
brave  advocacy  of  Hebrew  nationalism  against  the  con- 
servative pagan  party,  but  the  success  of  the  cause  was  as 
yet  doubtful. 


38  POLITY  OF    ANCIENT    HEBREWS — SULZBERGER 

An  event  occurred  which  put  the  matter  to  the  proof. 

The  Bedouins  overran  the  country,  and  if  anything 
was  to  be  saved  from  these  maurauders  prompt  action  was 
imperatively  needed.  Gideon  aroused  his  Abiezer  clan. 
With  three  hundred  picked  men,  shouting  their  way-cry, 
"The  sword  of  Jhvh  and  of  Gideon,"  he  attacked  and 
routed  the  invaders,  drove  the  survivors  across  Jordan, 
and  hotly  pursued  them.  When  he  reached  the  city  of 
Succoth,  in  Gilead,  his  supplies  failed.  He  applied  to  the 
council  {anshc  Succoth)  for  bread  for  his  soldiers,  as  he 
was  pursuing  the  Bedouin  kings  and  hoped  to  capture  them. 
The  sare  Succoth,  however,  reckoned  that  he  might  fail, 
and  in  that  case  they  would  have  to  suffer  the  vengeance 
of  the  Bedouins.  Their  reply,  indicating  the  probability  of 
such  an  event,  irritated  the  fiery  chieftain.  He  retorted 
with  the  ominous  parting  message:  When  Jhvh  hath  de- 
livered Zebah  and  Zalmuna  into  my  hand,  I  will  treat  your 
flesh  with  mid  bar-thorns  and  with  briers.  Abating  nothing 
of  the  pursuit,  he  reached  the  city  of  Penuel  and  there 
made  his  application  for  relief.  The  anshe  Penuel,  timid 
like  those  of  Succoth,  gave  him  a  flat  refusal.  The  infuri- 
ated Gideon  threatened  to  revisit  them  after  he  should 
have  triumphed,  and  to  break  down  their  tower  (migdal). 

Gideon  overtook  the  fleeing  enemy,  won  a  complete 
victory,  overthrew  the  retreating  army,  and  captured  its 
kings. 

On  his  return  march  he  punished  the  cities  which  had 
treated  him  so  coldly  and  unpatriotically.  Having  picked 
up  a  man  in  the  neighborhood  of  the  city  of  Succoth,  he 
ascertained,  by  questioning,  that  his  prisoner  was  a  clerk 
(na'ar)  of  the  city  council  (a)ishe  Succoth).  Whereupon, 
he  c()mi)elled  him  to  write  a  roll  or  list  of  the  sariDi  and 


POUTY   OF    ANCIENT    HEBREWS — SULZBERGER  39 

cekoiim  of  Succoth.    There  were  seventy-seven  in  all  (per- 
haps seventy  ackcnhn  and  seven  sarim). 

Thus  prepared,  he  entered  the  city  in  triumph,  carry- 
ing with  him  the  captive  kings.  Then  he  compelled  the 
council  to  meet  and  addressed  them  thus :  Here  are  the 
kings  whom  you  thought  I  could  not  capture.  You  are 
entitled  to  the  promised  reward ! 

Whereupon  he  took  the  ::iknc  ha-'ir  and  thrashed  them 
soundly  with  midbar-thorns  and  with  briers. 

Penuel  fared  even  worse.  He  broke  down  its  tower 
and  slew  the  members  of  its  council  (anshe  ha-'ir)  (Judges 
7,  7.  22;  8,  4-17). 

These  two  incidents  give  us  a  vivid  picture  of  the  times. 
Succoth  and  Penuel,  two  cities  of  eastern  Palestine,  are 
governed  by  zekenim  and  their  officials  (sarim).  They  re- 
gard alone  the  interests  of  their  narrow  communities.  The 
harrying  of  Manasseh  and  other  districts  west  of  Jordan 
does  not  disturb  them.  If  the  Bedouins  confine  their 
marauding  to  western  districts,  they  will  remain  neutral. 
The  national  consciousness  has  not  affected  them.  In 
Gideon,  however,  they  met  the  man  who  could  give  im- 
pressive lessons. 

Of  all  the  chieftains  called  Judges  (shophctim), 
Gideon  appears  to  have  been  the  most  forceful,  and  to  have 
given  the  earliest  and  greatest  impulsion  to  the  unification 
and  nationalization  of  Israel.  Besides  his  actions  already 
described,  the  records  aver  that  he  succeeded  in  getting 
partisans  out  of  Naphtali,  Asher,  and  Ephraim  to  act  with 
Manasseh  in  war  (Judges  7,  23.  24),  and  the  fact  that  his 
battle-cry  survived,  indicates  how  deep  an  impression  of 
him  was  stamped  on  the  popular  mind. 


40  POLITY  OF   ANCIENT    HEBREWS — SULZBERGER 

It  is  plainly  erroneous  to  see  in  these  military  leaders 
the  peaceful  magistrates  known  by  the  same  name  in  later 
times.  The  experience  of  Israel  was  the  same  as  that  of 
all  other  peoples  whose  rise  depended  on  the  success  of 
their  arms.  The  great  soldiers  wielded  the  whole  power  of 
the  state,  and  when  more  peaceful  times  came  and  the  bal- 
ance of  power  swung  to  the  civil  side,  the  names  of  the 
offices  which  had  become  important  in  the  eyes  of  the 
people,  were  transferred  to  purely  civil  offices,  with  radi- 
cally different  functions.  Thus  it  is  that  the  mclck,  shophet, 
dayan,  mchokck,  and  sopher,  who,  were,  of  old,  military 
officers,  came  to  designate  officials  whose  duties  were  mainly 
civil.  Ha- am,  which  was  anciently  the  army  (that  is,  all 
males  between  the  ages  of  twenty  and  fifty)  became  the 
whole  body  of  the  people.  And  of  the  process  the  word 
shophctim  is  perhaps  the  most  striking  instance.  In  Num- 
bers (ch.  25)  we  have  the  record  of  Israel's  unwholesome 
affiliation  with  Moab.  Drastic  measures  had  to  be  resorted 
to,  in  order  to  cure  the  mischief.  Moses  was  expressly  en- 
joined by  Jhvh,  to  take  all  the  chieftains  (rashc  ha-'am) 
and  hang  them,  whereupon  he  ordered  the  shophetim  to 
slay  each  one  such  of  his  men  as  had  accepted  Baal  Peor. 
This  was  an  order  merely  military  to  the  Provost-marshals 
of  the  army,  whose  duty  it  was  to  execute  the  culprits 
(Numb.  25,  1-5).  When  the  contest  had  progressed  and  the 
people  were  fighting  for  the  land,  conquering  it  and  settHng 
down  on  it  piecemeal  as  they  could,  these  shophetim  as  mili- 
tary chiefs  had  forced  upon  them  questions  relating  to  the 
civil  government  of  the  territory  they  commanded.  Thus  the 
name  of  their  office  was  preserved,  while  its  jurisdiction 
and  functions  were  modified.  Finally,  at  a  much  later 
stage,  it  came  to  designate  civil  judges  charged  with  the 


POLITY   OF    ANCIENT    HEBREWS— SULZBERGER  4I 

administration  of  justice  according  to  law,  and  thus  lost  its 
military  connotations. 

The  records  of  the  shophetim  book  show  the  process 
from  an  early  stage.  From  Othniel,  the  first  of  them,  to 
Samson,  the  last,  they  were  all  (so  far  as  we  know  anything 
about  them)  successful  warriors;  even  Deborah  is  not  ex- 
cepted, since  she  stirred  up  the  great  war  against  Sisera 
and  took  a  personal  part  in  it.  It  is  only  with  Eli  and 
Samuel  that  the  atmosphere  changes.  The  former,  when  we 
first  encounter  him,  is  a  priest,  grown  old  in  the  service 
of  the  Shiloh  temple,  while  the  latter  begins  as  his  acolyte. 
War,  instead  of  being  the  normal  condition,  has  degenerated 
into  an  incident,  not  unusual  it  is  true,  but  also  not  abnorm- 
ally frequent.  The  ecclesiastical  jurisdiction  has  become 
firmly  fixed,  and  men  are  questioning  and  criticizing  its  ad- 
ministration by  particular  officials  as  a  corrupt  departure 
from  ancient  custom  (I  Sam.  2,  13-17).  All  the  symptoms 
indicate  that  the  nation  has  been  practically  united,  and  that 
the  national  idea  of  God  and  the  state  have  permeated  every- 
where. Elkanah  went  up  out  of  his  city  yearly  to  worship 
and  to  sacrifice  at  Shiloh  (I  Sam.  i,  3),  and  we  may  freely 
accept  him  as  a  type.  Substantial  farmers  from  all  sections 
of  the  country  did  the  same  (I  Sam.  2,  14).  "And  all  Israel 
from  Dan  even  to  Beersheba  knew  that  Samuel  was  estab- 
lished to  be  a  prophet  of  Jhvh"  (I  Sam.  3,  20). 

While  it  is  true  that  we  cannnot  trace  the  progress  of 
nationalization  before  Eli,  we  may  be  sure  that  Gideon's 
part  in  it  was  not  small.  The  tradition  survived  that  a  na- 
tional assembly  of  Israel  (kol  ish  Israel)  offered  him  the 
royal  crown,  with  the  right  of  succession  in  his  descendants 
(Judges  8,  22),  and  that  he  made  his  home-city  Ophrah  the 
virtual  or  actual  capital  of  Israel  (Judges  8,  27). 


42  POLITY  OF    ANCIENT    HEBRIC WS — SULZBERGER 

There  is  another  chief,  Jephthah,  who  is  said  to  have 
been  shophet  of  Israel  (Judges  12,  7).  Of  his  activity  out- 
side of  his  own  Gilead,  we  know  Httle  or  nothing.  His 
story  merely  emphasizes  the  separateness  of  the  trans- 
Jordanic  Hebrews,  which  incensed  Gideon  and  which  was 
pithily  depicted  in  the  song  of  Deborah:  "Reuben  abode 
among  his  sheepfolds.  Gilead  abode  beyond  Jordan" 
(Judges  5,  16.  17).  The  blame  for  this  condition  must  not 
attach  to  the  Eastern  Hebrew  alone.  When  Gilead  was 
threatened,  it  applied  for  help  to  Ephraim  in  vain  (Judges 
12,  2),  and  so  bitter  was  the  feeling  that  it  led  to  war  be- 
tween Ephraim  and  Gilead  (Judges  12,  4-6). 

Jephthah's  career  is  interesting,  however,  for  our  point 
of  view.  He  is  the  rosh  and  kasin  of  the  "cities"  of 
Gilead,  and  he  became  so  by  the  independent  action  of  that 
league  of  cities.     The  narrative  is  full  and  complete. 

The  B'nc-Ammon,  a  non-Hebrew  people  dwelling  in 
Eastern  Palestine,  suddenly  put  an  army  in  motion  against 
Gilead.  The  case  was  desperate  and  the  sekenim  of  Gilead 
bethought  themselves  of  Jephthah  as  a  desirable  leader. 
He,  a  native  of  the  land,  the  son  of  a  princely  father,  had 
been  exiled  at  the  instance  of  his  brethren,  who  claimed  the 
superior  rights  of  legitimacy.  He  had  taken  up  his  abode 
in  the  land  of  Tob,  whither  traveled  a  delegation  of  the 
sckcnim  of  Gilead  to  fetch  him  home.  They  said  to  hini: 
Come  home  and  we  will  make  you  the  head  of  the  army. 
He  made  difficulties,  reminded  them  of  their  former  hostil- 
ity. They  increased  their  ofifer,  would  make  him  first  of 
all  the  lords  of  the  land  {rosh  lekol  yoshhc  Gilead).  He 
demanded  an  oath  that  they  would  not  forget  the  promise 
after  the  victory.  They  took  it  by  the  solemn  formula: 
JiivH  be  the  witness   {shome'a)  between  us!     Whereupon 


POLITY   OF   ANCIENT    HEBREWS — SULZBERGER  43 

he  accompanied  them  and  was  made  rosh  and  kasin,  the 
duties  of  which  offices  he  formally  assumed  Upline  Jhvh 
at  Mizpeh. 

We  have  here  an  instance  in  Hebrew  times  of  a  city- 
state  exercising,  apparently  without  limitation  or  restraint, 
as  complete  powers  of  sovereignty  as  it  would  have  en- 
joyed in  pre-Israelite  days.  It  is  threatened  by  a  foreign 
power,  which  "made  war  against  Israel,"  as  the  record  has 
it  (Judges  II,  4).  No  part  of  Israel,  however,  seems  to 
act  except  the  sekenim  of  Gilead,  who  send  to  fetch 
Jephthah  home  from  his  exile,  and  promise  to  make  him 
their  chief  (rosh).  He  enters  into  a  solemn  bargain  with 
them  Upline  Jhvh,  and,  in  consequence,  assumes  command 
in  the  manner  of  a  king  owing  allegiance  to  nobody.  He 
applies  for  aid  to  Ephraim  as  a  friendly  though  foreign 
power,  is  refused  on  the  ground  that  he  does  not  acknowl- 
edge allegiance  to  it,  the  claim  being  made  that  the  Gilead- 
ites  were  Ephraimite  fugitives  (Judges  12,  4).  He  re- 
sents the  claim,  wages  war  against  Ephraim,  and  demon- 
strates the  latter's  foreignness  by  showing  that  no  Ephraim- 
ite could  pronounce  a  shin  as  a  true  Gileadite  would 
(Judges   12,  6). 

In  short,  we  have  here  a  picture  of  a  pre-Israelite  city- 
state  with  its  king;  the  only  difference  being  that  the  king 
has  another  title  and  that  Jhvh  is  acknowledged  as  God. 

These  concessions  to  national  feeling  must,  however, 
not  be  overrated.  They  show  that  the  federal  unity,  though 
not  established,  had  made  a  start.  Even  then  the  influence 
of  Shiloh  must  have  been  at  work.  Indeed,  the  old  tradi- 
tion ran  that  it  was  from  Shiloh  that  Gilead  had  started  to 
take  possession  of  its  country  (Josh.  22,  9),  and  when  all 


44  POLITY  OF   ANCIENT    HEBREWS — SULZBERGER 

Israel  declared  war  against  Benjamin,  Gilead  sent  its  con- 
tingent (Judges  20,  i),  only  one  of  its  cities  holding  aloof. 

There  is  another  and  later  example  of  the  exercise  of 
sovereign  power  by  one  of  the  cities  east  of  Jordan.  That 
city  was  Jabesh-Gilead  (Judges  21,  9).  When  the  Federal 
council  declared  war  against  Benjamin,  it  was  the  city  that 
refused  to  send  its  quota  to  the  army,  though  the  other 
cities  of  Gilead  did  so.  The  result  of  the  war  was  the 
almost  complete  ruin  of  Benjamin;  only  six  hundred  of  its 
young  braves  survived  (Judges  20,  47).  The  Federal 
council,  dismayed  at  the  extinction  of  a  tribe,  cast  about  for 
a  method  of  rehabilitating  it.  They  had  all  sworn  not  to 
give  their  daughters  to  Benjamites.  The  only  resource 
was  to  find  women  of  Israel  whose  fathers  had  kept  aloof 
from  the  Federal  army  and  from  the  oath.  On  roll-call 
it  was  found  that  there  was  no  one  present  from  Jabesh- 
Gilead.  The  disaiTected  city  was  summarily  convicted  of 
high  treason  to  the  Federal  cause  and  the  total  destruction 
of  its  inhabitants  other  than  young  virgins  was  decreed.  An 
expedition  was  immediately  fitted  out,  the  city  w^as  taken, 
and  its  inhabitants  were  killed,  save  four  hundred  young 
virgins  who  were  given  to  Benjamites  for  wives. 

Another  narrative  (found  in  Samuel)  gives  a  clue  to 
the  true  meaning  of  this  incident.  The  tradition  evidently 
ran  in  Israel  that  Jabesh  had  maintained  a  relation  of  alli- 
ance with  the  Ammonites  and  that  this  caused  its  refusal  to 
join  the  body  of  Israel. 

After  the  war  of  the  tribes  against  it,  the  revived  city 
of  Jabesh  was  incorporated  into  the  Federal  Union.  So 
only  does  the  narrative  in  I  Samuel  1 1  become  intelligible. 
It  is  there  related  that  Nahash  (the  king  of  the  Ammonites) 
encamped  against  Jajjesh-Gilead,   evidently  because  it  had 


POLITY    OF   ANCIENT    HEBREWS — SULZBERGER  45 

fallen  off,  and  that  the  anshc  Jabesh  promptly  offered  to 
renew  their  allegiance.  This  he  arrogantly  refused,  unless 
they  would  submit  to  have  their  right  eyes  thrust  out  as  a 
reproach  and  defiance  to  united  Israel.  The  vindictive 
nature  of  this  demand  must  be  ascribed  to  the  transfer  by 
the  same  city  council  of  the  city's  allegiance  from  Ammon 
to  Israel,  for  which  desertion  signal  punishment  was  ne- 
cessary. The  ziknc  Jabesh  demanded  a  respite  of  seven 
days  to  communicate  this  defiance  to  Israel  and  to  receive 
help  from  it.  This  Nahash  magnanimously  granted.  The 
zikne  Jabesh  sent  messengers  to  the  council  (kol  ha-' am) 
of  Gibeah,  who  broke  into  weeping  at  the  tidings.  When 
Saul,  returned  from  his  day's  business  in  the  field,  learned 
the  cause  of  the  confusion,  he  promptly  called  for  Federal 
troops  to  aid  the  distressed  city,  and  bade  the  messengers 
return  home  with  the  assurance  that  help  was  at  hand.  The 
anshe  Jabesh  received  the  news  with  enthusiasm.  In  due 
time  Saul  arrived  and  defeated  the  Ammonites.  His  signal 
victory  silenced  all  opposition  as  well  to  the  Federal  union 
as  to  his  Kingship,  and  his  enthronement  in  the  Western 
kingdom  was  now  affirmed  and  celebrated  in  the  East- 
Jordanic  territory  at  Gilgal,  an  event  which  greatly  rejoiced 
Samuel  and  the  Federal  Council  {kol  anshe  Israel)  (I  Sam. 
II,  I-I5)- 

The  value  of  the  narrative  is  in  its  indication  that  the 
Jordan  marked  as  well  the  political  as  the  physical  separate- 
ness  of  the  East  and  West.  When  stubborn  old  Jabesh 
was  at  last  convinced  that  a.  Federal  union  of  all  Israel  was 
inevitable,  the  work  was  finished.  Even  then  it  did  not 
accept  the  western  king  as  the  legal  head  of  the  state  until 
he  had  been  crowned  in  the  East. 


46  POLITY  OF   ANCIENT    HEBREjWS — SULZBERGER 

The  examples  of  Succoth,  of  Penuel,  of  Gilead  show 
that  as  regards  political  power  the  early  Hebrew  city-states 
that  lay  to  the  East  of  Jordan  seem  to  have  exercised  it 
without  restraint  or  control. 

The  instance  of  Ophrah  shows  that  the  same  was  true 
of  the  Western  city-states'  ecclesiastical  power. 

Even  so  late  as  the  time  of  Samuel  we  find  remnants 
of  it  in  the  West.  When  the  Ark  of  Jhvh  was  cast  adrift 
by  the  Philistines  and  landed  at  Beth-Shemesh,  the  anshe 
Bet-shemcsJi  assumed  official  control  over  it  and  offered 
'olof  and  zcbahim  (I  Sam.  6,  15),  and  when  its  presence 
brought  calamity,  the  anshe  Bet-shcmesh  sent  messengers  to 
Kiriath-jearim,  to  induce  that  city  to  take  charge  of  the 
holy  relic.  The  latter  fetched  it  and  sanctified  (kiddcshii) 
a  young  man  to  guard  it.  And  to  the  last,  after  the  federal 
union  had  been  established  for  ages,  and  the  ecclesiastical 
power  had  become  nationalized,  the  priest-cities  retained 
the  ecclesiastical  powers  of  the  old  city-states.  This  we 
learn  from  the  action  of  the  Anathoth  council  against 
Jeremiah.  Anathoth  was  a  priest-city  at  least  as  early  as 
the  time  of  Solomon.  When  Abiathar  fell  from  the  latter's 
favor,  he  was  ordered  to  go  into  retirement  on  his  estate 
at  Anathoth  (I  Kings  2,  26). 

Jeremiah  belonged  to  it  by  birth  (Jer.  i,  i),  being  "of 
the  kohanim  that  were  in  Anathoth."  When  he  began  to 
take  his  own  course,  the  anshe  Anathoth  ordered  him  to 
desist,  claiming  the  right  to  condemn  and  execute  him  if  he 
disobeyed  (Jer.  11,  21). 

One  other  important  survival  of  the  old  city-state  sov- 
ereignty was  the  importance  in  the  public  life  of  the  state 
of  the  capital  cities  of  the  two  kingdoms.  Jeremiah,  than 
whom  none  was  more    familiar    with    political    conditions, 


POI^ITY   OF    ANCIENT    HEBREWS — SULZBERGER  4/ 

addresses  the  state  as  "men  (ish)  of  Judah  and  inhabitants 
(yoshbe)  of  Jerusalem"  (Jer.  4,  4:  17,  25;  7,  17.  34;  8,  i, 
etc.,  etc.),  always  mentioning  the  capital  city  in  a  manner 
indicating  that  it  possessed  and  exercised  special  powers. 

A  similar  phenomenon  is  observable  in  the  Northern 
Kingdom.  When  Jehu  had  killed  Ahab  and  was  about  to 
destroy  the  scions  of  that  house,  root  and  branch, 
he  mockingly  dared  the  sarim  and  zekenim  of 
Jezreel  to  enthrone  one  of  Ahab's  sons  (II  Kings 
10.  1-3),  a  sorry  jest,  indicating,  however,  that  the 
council  of  that  city  had  special  political  powers  not  shared 
by  the  other  cities  of  the  kingdom. 

So  Jezebel,  when  she  intrigued  to  put  Naboth  on  trial 
for  blasphemy  and  lese-majesty,  gave  the  directions  to  the 
sekcnim  and  the  sarim  of  Jezreel,  fellow-councillors  with 
Naboth  (I  Kings  21,  8),  to  convoke  the  high  court  of  the 
nation,  the  rosh  ha-'am  (21,  12),  in  which  they  must  have 
had  a  specially  influential  position. 

That  these  city-councils  exercised  ordinary  municipal 
functions  was  a  matter  of  course.  When  distinguished 
strangers  came  to  the  city,  the  council  received  and  enter- 
tained them. 

Samuel,  for  instance,  visited  Bethlehem  for  an  import- 
ant purpose,  which  was  not  publicly  known.  The  sikne 
ha-'ir  cordially  met  and  welcomed  him  (I  Sam.  16,  4).  It 
may  be  well  to  note  here  that  the  Authorized  Version  which 
makes  the  sekenim  tremble  at  Samuel's  coming  is  based  on 
a  misunderstanding  of  the  word  zvayeherdu,  which  besides 
tremt^ing  means  also  being  extremely  hospitable.  Thus 
Elisha.  in  acknowledging  the  anxious  hospitality  of  the 
great  lady  of  Shunem,  calls  it  haradah  (II  Kings  4,  13). 


48  POLITY  OF   ANCIE^NT   HEBREWS — SULZBERGER 

When  King  Josiah  visited  Bethel  he  was  attended  by 
the  anshe  ha-'ir,  who  promptly  gave  him  the  information 
he  was  seeking  (II  Kings  23,  17).  And  when  the  water 
supply  of  Jericho  was  defective,  the  anshe  ha-'ir  requested 
EHsha  to  improve  its  quaHty  (II  Kings  2,  19). 

Besides  their  political,  ecclesiastical,  and  municipal 
functions,  the  sikne  ha-'ir  exercised  general  judicial  powers. 
They  tried  murder  cases,  and  if  the  murderer  fled  to  a  city 
of  refuge,  they  could  demand  and  obtain  his  extradition 
for  the  purpose  of  handing  him  over  to  the  executioner 
(go' el  ha-dam)  (Deut.  19,  12).  If  the  murderer  could  not 
be  discovered  they  washed  the  city's  hands  of  "innocent 
blood"  by  a  ceremony  and  a  sacrifice,  and  thus  removed 
the  blood-guilt  which  would  otherwise  have  attached  to  the 
city.  If  the  murderer  of  the  victim,  whose  dead 
body  was  found  in  a  field,  could  not  be  discovered,  it  was 
the  duty  of  the  sikne  ha-'ir  to  see  to  it  that  the  blood-guilt 
should  not  be  fastened  on  their  own  city,  unless,  by  careful 
measurement,  it  should  be  ascertained  that  it  was  nearer 
than  any  other  city  to  the  place  where  the  body  lay  (Deut. 
21,  1-9). 

The  sikne  ha-'ir  also  had  jurisdiction  in  certain  delicate 
matrimonial  questions  involving  not  only  amercements  and 
other  penalties,  but  extending  also  to  capital  punishment 
(Deut.  22,    13-21). 

Indeed,  it  is  probable  that  the  twenty-first  and  twenty- 
second  chapters  of  Deuteronomy  were  compiled  from  a 
code  defining  the  powers  of  the  sikne  ha-'ir,  and  that  certain 
provisions  contained  in  those  chapters  were  part  of  such 
code,  although  the  sikne  ha-'ir  are  not  mentioned  in  con- 


POLITY   OF   ANCIENT    HEBREWS — SULZBERGER  49 

nection  with  them.  Such  is  particularly  the  direction  to 
build  battlements  for  the  roofs  of  houses  (Deut.  22,  9). 
The  distinction  between  a  criminal  act  perpetrated  within 
the  city,  and  a  similar  act  perpetrated  in  the  field  (Deut. 
22,  23-27)  may  also  be  derived  from  that  code. 

The  evidence  seems  sufficient  to  warrant  the  conclu- 
sion that  these  councils  (the  anshe  ha-'ir,  the  sikne  ha-'ir) 
combined  the  full  judicial  power  with  their  other  functions, 
and  that  the  administration  of  justice  was  not  confided  to  a 
special  class  of  experts  learned  in  the  law  until  a  much 
later  period.  When  this  change  came  about  is  matter  for 
future  investigation.  That  it  had  to  come  is  perfectly 
plain. 

The  country  was  composed  of  a  large  number  of 
cantons,  called  "cities."  The  aim  was  to  create  a  nation. 
A  clash  between  the  "cantonal"  view  and  the  "federal" 
view  was  inevitable.  It  resulted  at  first  in  the  endeavor  to 
bring  the  cantonal  bodies  to  take  national  positions  on 
questions  coming  before  them  by  sending  a  federal  expert 
or  experts  to  advise  them  or  to  sit  with  them,  and  finally,  in 
the  establishment  of  the  federal  courts,  which  should  in 
certain  federal  questions  be  supreme. 

There  are  certain  passages,  obscure  it  is  true,  but 
nevertheless  significant,  which  warrant  these  conclusions. 
We  have  already  referred  to  the  case  of  a  murdered  man 
being  found  in  a  field,  and  of  the  necessity  of  ascertaining 
which  was  the  nearest  city,  since  upon  it  the  blood-guilt 
would  be  fastened.  Finally  the  sikne  ha-'ir  of  those  cities 
met  each  other  for  the  purpose,  and,  it  is  safe  to  say, 
squabbles  followed.  Afterward  we  find  that  the  kohanim 
(the  B'ne  Levi)  join  them,  and  the  explanatory  note  fol- 
lowing this  statement  gives  as  a  reason  for  the  apparent 


50  POLITY  OF   ANCIENT   HEBREWS — SULZBERGER 

intrusion  that  "Jhvh  thy  God  hath  chosen  them  to  minister 
unto  him  and  to  bless  in  the  name  of  Jhvh;  and  by  their 
word  shall  every  controversy  (rib)  and  every  assault 
{ncga')  be  tried"  (Deut.  21,  5).  That  these  kohanim  (B'ne 
Levi)  were  the  delegates  of  the  federal  government  can 
scarcely  be  doubted. 

Concerning  the  establishment  of  a  federal  court  and 
the  removal  thereto  of  an  inter-cantonal  question,  we  also 
have  evidence.  By  the  old  zikne  ha-'ir  law,  if  a  murderer 
fled  the  jurisdiction  and  was  admitted  to  an  asylum  city  by 
its  zikne  ha-'ir,  the  sikne  ha-'ir  of  the  city  where  the  crime 
had  been  committed  demanded  his  extradition  for  execution 
by  the  go'cl  ha-dam  (Deut.  19,  12).  As  his  admission  to 
the  asylum  city  was  not  granted  until  his  application  had 
been  passed  upon  by  the  sikne  ha-'ir  of  the  asylum  city 
(Josh.  20,  4),  there  was  virtually  a  judgment  in  his  favor 
that  the  murder  was  mere  manslaughter.  The  demand 
for  extradition  necessarily  attacked  this  judgment.  The 
old  law  (Deut.  19,  12)  nevertheless  required  his  surrender. 
The  inter-cantonal  controversies  thus  arising  were  there- 
fore removed  to  the  federal  court.  The  ::ikne  ha-'ir  of  the 
asylum  city  were  forbidden  to  surrender  the  fugitive  on 
the  demand  of  his  home  city  (through  the  go' el  ha-dam) 
(Josh.  20,  5)  and  the  national  court,  the  'edah,  acquired 
jurisdiction.  "The  'edah  shall  judge  between  the  slayer 
and  the  go'el  ha-dam."  If  it  affirmed  the  judgment  of  the 
sikne  ha-'ir  of  the  asylum  city,  it  (the  'edah)  restored  the 
defendant  to  it  (Numb.  35,  24.  25;  Josh.  20,  6). 

There  were,  however,  two  classes  of  cases  over  which 
the  old  cikne  ha-'ir  had  jurisdiction  which  in  importance 
far  overshadowed  all  others.  In  the  contest  to  establish 
Jhvh  as  the  sole  God  of  the  nation,  the  most  dangerous 


POLITY  OF  ANCIENT   HEBREWS — SULZBERGER  5 1 

crime  was  missionary  apostasy,  the  misleading  of  men  to 
revert  to  the  old  paganism.  This  crime  was  technically 
known  as  sarah  or  dibber  s-a-r-a-h,  and  the  federal  author- 
ities deemed  its  suppression  vital  to  the  existence  of  the 
commonwealth. 

In  the  endeavor  to  establish  a  state  of  prosperous 
agriculturists  among  whom  there  should  be  no  extreme 
poverty,  the  land-laws  were  of  the  first  importance.  That 
every  family  could  have  and  retain  its  own  farm  and  its 
own  home  was  the  ideal  of  the  federal  statesmen. 

The  jurisdiction  of  the  cantonal  tribunals  was  unfavor- 
able to  the  achievement  of  either  of  these  purposes. 

We  have  already  seen  in  the  trial  of  Gideon  for  over- 
throwing the  Baal  altar,  that  the  zikne  ha-'ir,  instead  of 
striving  to  promote  the  cause  of  Jhvh,  stood  by  the  old  pre- 
Israelite  cantonal  god;  that  they  looked  upon  Gideon,  who 
had  enlisted  others  in  his  cause,  as  guilty  of  s-a-r-a-h,  the 
offence  being  committed  not  r.gainst  Jhvh,  but  against 
Baal.  It  was  also  intimated  that  the  proceedings  of  the 
zikne  ha-'ir,  including  their  demand  on  Joash  to  produce 
Gideon  for  execution,  were  by  virtue'  of  an  ancient  zikne 
ha-'ir  law  which  survives  in  the  Pentateuch  (Deut.  21, 
18-21). 

The  wording  is:  "If  a  man  have  a  ben  sorer  u-morch, 
who  will  not  obey  the  voice  of  his  father,  or  the  voice  of 
his  mother,  and  that,  when  they  have  chastened  him,  will 
not  hearken  unto  them : 

"Then  shall  his  father  and  his  mother  lay  hold  on  him, 
and  bring  him  out  unto  the  elders  of  his  city  and  unto 
the  gate  of  his  place.  And  they  shall  say  unto  the  elders 
of  his  city :  This  our  son  is  sorer  u-moreh,  and  he  will  not 
obey   our   voice;   he   is  a  glutton  (solel)    and  a  drunkard 


52  POLITY  OF   ANCIH;NT    HEBREWS — SULZBERGER 

(sobe),  and  kol  ansJie  'iro  shall  stone  him  with  stones  that 
he   die." 

At  first  blush  there  would  seem  to  be  nothing  in  this 
law  to  justify  the  view  that  it  is  leveled  against  apostasy. 
A  more  careful  examination,  however,  reveals  certain  facts 
which  cannot  be  ignored.  The  first  of  them  is  that  the  law 
contains  inconsistent  definitions  of  the  crime.  The  term 
hen  sorer  u-moreh  itself  was  probably  intelligible  to  every- 
body.   Yet  we  have  the  following  definitions : 

1.  Who  will  not  obey  the  voice  of  his  father  or  his 
mother. 

2.  The  same  with  this  qualification: 
"After  they  have  chastised  him." 

3.  He  is  a  glutton  and  a  drunkard  {zolel  zve-sobe). 
Stripping  it  of  these  excrescences,  we  have  the  original 

form : 

"If  a  man  have  a  ben  sorer  u-moreh,  his  father  and 
his  mother  shall  lay  hold  on  him  and  bring  him  out  to  the 
elders  of  his  city  and  kol  anshe  'iro  shall  stone  him  to 
death." 

That  the  definitions  are  excrescences  seems  very  plain. 
That  a  son  should  honor  his  parents  is  a  mere  commonplace. 
Indeed,  by  a  very  ancient  Hebrew  law,  insulting  parents 
was  probably  punished  with  death,  "condemned  to  death 
(arur)  shall  be  he  who  degrades  (or  insults)  his  father  or 
his  mother,"  (Deut.  27,  16).  Certain  it  is  that  cursing  them 
(Exod.  21,  17;  Lev.  20,  9;  Prov.  20,  20),  or  striking  them 
(Exod.  21,  15)  were  both  capital  crimes.  These  provisions 
were  amply  sufficient  to  protect  the  parental  dignity,  and 
one  may  well  be  puzzled  to  determine  why  mere  disobedi- 


POLITY    OF    ANCIENT    HEBREWS — SULZBERGER  53 

ence  or  eating  too  much,  or  drinking  too  much,  should  be 
made  capital  offences  in  a  son  not  too  old  to  be  whipped 
by  his  father  or  his  mother.  Without  the  definitions,  how- 
ever, no  one  would  translate  ben  sorer  u-moreh,  "stubborn 
and   rebellious   son." 

The  clue  to  the  real  meaning  is  to  be  found  in  this 
crime  of  s-a-r-a-h  which  we  are  considering.  Sorer  is  one 
guilty  of  apostasy,  and  moreh  means  that  he  is  aggressive 
in  teaching  his  rebellion.  There  is  no  reason  for  translating 
moreh  otherwise  than  according  to  its  plain  meaning  of 
"teacher."  Accordingly,  a  sorer  u-moreh  is  an  apostate 
who  teaches  apostasy. 

The  word  "sorer"  characterizes  idolaters  in  many  in- 
stances (Isai.  65,  2-y ;  Jer.  5,  23;  Hos.  4.  15.  16;  9.  1-15) 
and  in  one  passage  Isaiah  (30,  i)  calls  a  company  of  men, 
rebels  to  true  national  policy,  banim  sorerim. 

And  so  moreh.  Isaiah  denounces  the  misleading  7tabi 
as  a  moreh  sheker  (Isai.  g,  14).  Habakkuk  applies  the 
same  term  to  the  man  who  trusts  in  his  molten  images  for 
guidance  (Hab.  2,  18.  19),  and  Proverbs  declares  that  a 
man  of  Belial  teaches  wickedness  {moreh)  with  his  fingers 
(Prov.  6,   12.   13). 

Indeed,  the  terms  sorer  and  moreh  naturally  go  to- 
gether, because  the  sorer  is  one  who  seeks  to  convert  others 
by  argument.  He  speaks  sarah  {dibber  sarah,  Deut.  13, 
6  (5V). 

The  nabi  Hananiah  is  doomed  to  die  within  the  year 
because  he  had  spoken  sarah  (Jer.  28,  16),  and  the  same 
expression  is  used  of  Shemaiah  the  Nehelamite  (Jer.  29, 
32). 

As  to  gluttons  and  drunkards,  no  one  dreams  of  their 
being  liable  to  capital  punishment.     The  proverbial  philos- 


54  POIvlTY  OF  ANCIENT   HEBREWS — SULZBERGER 

ophy  speaks  of  them  much  as  we  would  in  our  day:  The 
sobe  and  solel  come  to  poverty  (Prov.  23,  20.  21)  ;  whoso 
consorts  with  zolclim  shameth  his  father  (Prov.  28,  7). 

The  meaning  of  the  law  thus  ascertained  makes  clear 
its  application  to  the  case  of  Gideon  at  Ophrah.  Gideon 
having  been  adjudged  sorer  n-niorch,  it  becomes  his  fath- 
er's duty  to  deliver  him  to  the  anshe  ha-'ir  for  execution. 
We  need  not  rely  on  mere  inference,  however,  for  this  con- 
clusion. It  happens  that  the  offence  of  teaching  s-a-r-a-h 
{dibber  s-a-r-a-h)  is  fully  treated  of  in  a  later  statute,  when 
the  right  to  try  it  had  been  transferred  to  a  Federal  court 
{kol  ha-'am),  and  this  statute  is  express  in  demanding  that 
a  man  must  denounce  not  only  his  son,  but  his  brother,  his 
daughter,  his  wife,  or  his  bosom  friend,  if  they  have  com- 
mitted this  offence,  and  must  also,  as  such  denunciant, 
assist  at  the  execution. 

The  words  of  this  remarkable  law  are  as  follows: 

"If  there  arise  among  you  a  nabi  (prophet)  or  a 
dreamer  of  dreams,  and  giveth  thee  a  sign  or  a  wonder" 
(Deut.   13,  2  (i)    ). 

"And  the  sign  or  the  wonder  come  to  pass,  whereof 
he  spake  unto  thee,  saying,  Let  us  go  after  other  gods, 
which  thou  hast  not  known,  and  let  us  serve  them"  (13, 
3   (2)   ). 

"That  nabi  and  dreamer  of  dreams  shall  be  put  to 
death  because  he  hath  spoken  sarah  {dibber  sarah)  against 
Jiivii  your  God.  ...  to  thrust  thee  out  of  the  way  which 
Jhvii  thy  God  commanded  thee  to  walk  in  ...."  (13,  6 
(5)  ). 

"If  thy  brother,  the  son  of  thy  mother,  or  thy  son,  or 
thy   daughter,   or  the   wife   of   thy   bosom,   or   thy   friend, 


POLITY   OF   ANCIENT   HEBREWS — SULZBERGER  55 

which  is  as  thine  own  soul,  entice  thee  secretly,  saying,  Let 
us  go  and  serve  other  gods,  which  thou  hast  not  known, 
thou  nor  thy  fathers"  (13,  7  (6))  ; 

"Namely,  of  the  gods  of  the  people  which  are  round 
about  you,  nigh  unto  thee,  or  far  off  from  thee,  from  the 
one  end  of  the  earth  even  unto  the  other  end  of  the  earth" 
(13,  8  (7)   ); 

"Thou  shalt  not  consent  unto  him,  nor  hearken  unto 
him ;  neither  shall  thine  eye  pity  him,  neither  shalt  thou 
spare,  neither  shalt  thou  conceal  him"  (13,  9  (8)   ). 

"Thou  shalt  inform  upon  him  that  he  may  be  tried 
and  executed;  thine  hand  shall  be  first  upon  him  at  the 
execution  and  afterwards  the  hand  of  kol  ha-'am"  (13,  10 
(9)   )• 

"Thou  shalt  stone  him  that  he  die  ....  "  (Deut.  13, 
II   (10)   ). 

And  there  is  a  fragment  of  even  an  older  law  of 
s-a-r-a-h  which  seems  to  have  been  enacted  when  the  trial 
was  still  by  oracle,  and  to  have  been  amended  from  time 
to  time  as  the  jurisdiction  was  vested  first  in  the  kohanim 
and  at  a  later  period  in  the  shophetim.  In  the  trial  by 
oracle,  there  was  merely  the  evidence  of  the  denunciant. 
This  consisted  in  a  solemn  statement  of  the  charge  to  the 
oracle-priest,  through  whom  the  oracle  then  communicated 
the  judgment.  As  the  crime  of  s-a-r-a-h  was  not  complete 
unless  the  accused  had  spoken  words  of  persuasion  to 
others,  the  denunciant  was  called  shomea'  (hearer)  (Lev. 
24,  14)  which,  in  later  times  designated  the  righteous  wit- 
ness in  contrast  with  the  perjurer  (Pro.  21,  28).  In  other 
matters  where  the  transaction  was  a  visible  one,  the  oracle- 
witness  was  called  ro'eh  (seer)  (Exod.  22,  9  (10))  a  word 
which  finally  came  to  mean  spy  (II  Sam  15,  27). 


56  POLITY  OP   ANCIENT    HE;bri;\VS — SULZBERGER 

When  the  system  was  changed  and  the  kohanim  tried 
the  case  without  the  oracle,  the  mere  denvmciant  disap- 
peared and  in  his  stead  the  true  witness  ('cd)  emerged. 
It  would  appear  that  originally,  the  requisite  evidence 
against  the  defendant  being  given,  the  court  had  no  option 
but  to  give  judgment.  In  such  a  state  of  the  \a\w,  where 
positive  and  direct  evidence  of  a  person  who  had  heard  or 
seen  was  alone  admissible,  the  defendant's  position  was  very 
perilous. 

It  was  then  enacted  that  in  cases  of  s-a-r-a-h  the  de- 
fendant could  halt  the  decision  by  impeaching  the  witness 
of  perjury.  The  new  supplemental  issue  thus  framed 
was  originally  tried  by  the  oracle  (liphne  Jhvh).  As 
this  mode  of  trial  had  for  the  main  issue  been  superseded, 
it  could  not  have  lasted  long  for  the  supplemental  issue. 
Accordingly,  we  find  the  words  liphne  Jhvh  as  the  mode 
of  trial  supplemented  by  the  words  liphne  ha-kohanim, 
which  indicate  that  the  priests  themselves  now  tried  the 
whole  question.  Afterwards,  when  the  system  of  regular 
courts  (shophetim)  was  introduced  to  replace  the  kohanim 
courts,  the  judges  tried  the  whole  question.  If  the  witness 
was  acquitted  of  the  perjury,  the  defendant  in  s-a-r-a-h 
suffered  death,  but  if  he  was  convicted,  the  defendant  was 
acquitted  and  the  perjurer  suffered  the  death  by  stoning 
which  he  had  cruelly  and  wickedly  designed  to  inflict  on 
the  innocent  defendant. 

This  remarkable  statute  is  as  follows : 

"If  a  false  witness  rise  up  against  any  man  to  accuse 
him  of  sarah   (apostasy)"'   (Deut.  19,  16). 

"Then  both  the  men  between  whom  the  controversy 
(;-///)  is  shall  stand  liphne  Jiivii   (i.  e.  before  the  kohanim 


POLITY   OF   ANCIENT    HE:brEWS — SULZBERGER  S7 

and  the  shopJiefim)  which  shall  be  in  those  days)"  (Deut. 
19,  I?)- 

"And  the  shophetim  shall  make  diligent  inquisition : 
and  behold  if  the  witness  be  a  false  witness  and  hath 
testified  falsely  against  his  brother  (19,  18)  ; 

"Then  shall  ye  do  unto  him,  as  he  had  thought  to  have 
done  unto  his  brother   ....   "   (19,   19). 

"Thine  eye  shall  not  pity,  life  shall  go  for  life,  eye  for 
eye,  tooth  for  tooth,  hand  for  hand,  foot  for  foot"  (19,  21). 

The  text  of  this  law  presents  many  difficulties,  due, 
doubtless,  to  the  fact  that  in  it  was  incorporated  an  im- 
portant later  amendment,  which  provided  that  in  certain 
cases  the  evidence  of  one  witness  should  thereafter  be 
insufficient  (Deut.  19,  15),  and  to  the  further  fact  that  the 
principle  established  by  imposing  the  death  penalty  on  false 
witnesses  in  s-a-r-a-h  was  afterwards  expanded  into  a 
general  principle  affecting  false  witnesses  in  cases  of  mur- 
der and  assault  (Deut.  19,  21),  in  some  of  which  the  pen- 
alty was  less  severe.  Nevertheless,  a  careful  scrutiny  of 
the  text  will  show  that  the  tribunal  designated  in  its  orig- 
inal form  (i.  e.  the  oracle)  was  changed  first  to  kohanim 
and  afterwards  to  shopctim,  the  notes  of  such  change 
having  in  time  been  transferred  from  the  margin  to  the 
text  itself. 

This  subject  of  s-a-r-a-h  ought  not  to  be  dismissed 
without  at  least  mentioning  a  series  of  other  legal  pro- 
visions intended  to  carry  into  effect  the  general  policy 
which  produced  the  s-a-r-a-h  law. 

"He  that  sacrificeth  unto  any  god,  save  unto  Jhvh 
only,  shall  be  put  to  death"  (yahoram)  (Exod.  22,  19 
(20)). 

"Thou  shalt  say  to  the  B'ne-Israel,  whoever  he  be  of 
the  B'ne-Israel  or  of  the  ger  that  sojourn  in  Israel,  that 


58  POLITY  OF    ANCIENT    HEBRKvVS — SULZBERGER 

giveth  any  of  his  seed  to  Moloch;  he  shall  be  put  to  death; 
the  'am  ha-arcs  shall  stone  him"  (Lev.  20,  2). 

"And  if  the  'am  ha-arcs  do  anyways  hide  their  eyes 
from  the  man,  when  he  giveth  of  his  seed  to  Moloch  and 
put  him  not  to   death"    (Lev.   20,   4). 

"Then  I  shall  set  my  face  against  that  man  and  against 
his  family  and  will  cut  him  off  and  all  that  follow  his 
practice  to  worship  Moloch,  from  among  his  people"  (Lev. 
20,  5). 

"If  there  be  found  among  you,  within  any  of  thy 
shc'arim  (gates,  cities),  which  Jhvh  thy  God  giveth  thee, 
man  or  woman  that  hath  wrought  wickedness  in  the  sight 
of  Jhvh  thy  God,  in  transgressing  his  covenant"  (Deut. 
17-  2). 

"And  hath  gone  and  served  other  gods  and  worship- 
ped them,  either  the  sun,  or  moon,  or  any  of  the  host  of 
heaven,  which  I  have  not  commanded"   (Deut.  17,  3). 

"And  it  be  told  thee  and  thou  hast  heard  (the  shomca') 
and  enquired  diligently  and  behold  it  be  true  and  the  thing 
certain,  that  such  abomination  is  wrought  in  Israel"  (Deut. 
17,    4). 

"Then  thou  shalt  bring  forth  that  man  or  that  woman 
which  have  committed  that  wicked  thing,  unto  thy  gates, 
even  that  man  or  that  woman,  and  shalt  stone  them  until 
they  die"    (Deut.   17,  5). 

"At  the  mouth  of  two  witnesses  {'cdim)  or  three  wit- 
nesses shall  the  convict  (ha-met)  be  put  to  death;  at  the 
mouth  of  one  witness  he  shall  not  be  put  to  death"  (Deut. 
17,  6). 

"The  hands  of  the  witnesses  shall  be  lirst  upon  him 
to  put  him  to  death,  and  afterwards  the  hands  of  kol  Iia-'am 
....    "   (Deut.   17.  7). 


POUTY    OF    ANCIENT    HEBREWS — SULZBERGER  59 

•"The  nabi  (prophet)  which  shall  presume  to  speak  a 
word  in  my  name,  which  I  have  not  commanded  him  to 
speak,  or  that  shall  speak  in  the  name  of  other  gods,  that 
nabi  shall  die  (Deut.  i8,  20). 

Noteworthy  in  this  series  of  laws  are  the  following 
points,  all  relating  to  the  proceedings  in  the  Federal  courts : 

a.  In  Exod.  22,  19  (20)  the  word  yahoram  is  used  to 
mean  "shall  be  put  to  death."  It  probably  indicates  the 
form  of  death  sentence  pronounced  by  the  kohauim.  during 
their  judicial  pre-eminence. 

b.  In  Lev.  20.  2  the  'am  ha-ares  is  the  Federal  trial 
court. 

c.  In  Lev.  20,  4  the  'am  ha-ares  is  impliedly  re- 
proached for  lenity  towards  Moloch-worshipers. 

d.  In  Deut.   17,  7,  too,  the  'am  is  the  trial  court. 

In  connection  with  this  whole  subject,  it  will  be  inter- 
esting to  note  a  reported  case  where  the  death-penalty  was 
inflicted,  which  case,  according  to  ancient  Hebrew  practice, 
at  once  became  a  binding  precedent  and  was  restated  in 
statutory  form. 

It  is  the  case  of  a  man  who  was  the  son  of  a  Hebrew 
woman  by  an  Egyptian.  He  was  charged  with  having 
blasphemed  the  shem  (a  kind  of  s-a-r-a-h),  being  the  public 
reviling  of  the  Ark  of  the  Covenant,  the  visible  power  in 
the  oracle  tribunal,  which  was  called  shcm  (Exod.  20,  7; 
Num.  6,  27;  Deut.  5,  11;  II  Sam.  6,  2 ;  I  Kings  8,  16.  29; 
9,  3;  II,  36;  II  Kings  21,  4.  7;  23,  27;  I  Chr.  13,  6;  II  Chr. 
6,  5-  6;  7,  20;  20,  8.  9;  33,  4.  7). 

There  was  no  doubt  that  the  offence,  if  committed  by 
a  Hebrew,  was  punishable  with  death,  but  the  question  was 
raised  whether  one  of  the   half-blood   was  subject  to  the 


6o  POLITY  OF   ANCIENT    HEBREWS — SULZBERGER 

same  penalty.  The  decision  was  that  though  not  a  pure 
Hebrew,  he  came  within  the  class  of  gerim  and  that  gcrim 
were  liable  in  the  same  manner  as  Hebrews. 

Hence  the  wording  of  the   statute : 

"Whosoever  curseth  {yekallcl)  his  God  shall  bear  his 
sin,  and  he  that  blasphemeth  the  shcm  of  Jhvh  shall  surely 
be  put  to  death ;  kol  ha-'cdah  shall  stone  him, — as  well  the 
gcr  as  the  ezrah"  (Lev.  24,  15.  16). 

The  report  of  the  case  presents  other  points  of  inter- 
est. It  estabHshes  that  the  jurisdiction  had  already  vested 
in  the  Federal  tribunal  {kol  ha-'cdah),  but  that  when  a  case 
came  up  for  which  there  was  no  precedent  or  statute,  the 
oracle  had  to  be  consulted.  It  also  reaffirms  the  general 
principle  that  the  witnesses  must  initiate  the  execution  of 
the  criminal  by  laying  their  hands  on  his  head,  and  attests 
the  law  that  executions  must  take  place  outside  of  the  city- 
gates   (Lev.  24,  II- 16.  23). 

The  wording  is  as  follows : 

"And  the  Israelitish  woman's  son  blasphemed  the  sheni 
and  cursed.  And  they  brought  him  unto  Moses :  (and  his 
mother's  name  was  Shelomith,  the  daughter  of  Dibri,  of 
the  tribe  of  Dan.)"    (Lev.  24,    11). 

"And  they  put  him  in  ward,  that  the  mind  of  Jhvh 
might  be   showed  them"    (24,    12). 

"And  JiiVH  spake  unto  Moses,  saying:"  (23,  13). 

"Bring  forth  the  mekallel  (him  that  hath  cursed)  with- 
out the  camp  and  let  all  the  shomc'im  lay  their  hands  upon 
his  head,  and  let  kol  ha-'cdah  stone  him"   (24,   14). 

"And  thou  shalt  speak  unto  the  children  of  Israel, 
saying.  Whosoever  curseth  his  God  shall  bear  his  sin"  (24, 

15). 

"And  he  that  blasphemeth  the  shcm  of  Jhvh  shall  be 


POUTV    OF   ANCIENT    HEBREWS — SULZBERGER  6l 

put  to  death ;  kol  ha-'edah  shall  stone  him,  as  well  the  ger 
as  the  esrah,  when  he  blasphemeth  the  shem  shall  be  put 
to  death"   (24,   15). 

"And  Moses  spake  to  the  B'ne-Isracl,  that  they  should 
bring  forth  him  that  had  cursed  out  of  the  camp,  and  stone 
him.  And  the  B'ne-Isracl  did  as  Jhvh  commanded  Moses" 
(24.   23). 

In  this  connection  should  be  mentioned  another  old 
law,  closely  related  to  the  law  of  Exod.  22,  19  (20),  and  ap- 
parently designed  to  supplement  the  ancient  law  of  s-a-r-a-h. 
Whereas  the  latter  crime  was  not  complete  without  prose- 
lyting activity  on  the  part  of  the  accused,  this  law  punishes 
the  act  even  when  done  in  secret  (ba-scter).  It  is  as  fol- 
lows :  "Arur  the  man  that  maketh  any  graven  or  molten 
image,  an  abomination  to  Jhvh,  the  work  of  the  crafts- 
man's hand,  and  sets  it  up  in  secret"  (Deut.  27,  15). 

Like  the  yahoram  of  Exod.  22,  20,  this  word  arur 
is  probably  a  priestly  form  of  death-sentence.  Perhaps 
different  modes  of  execution  are  intimated  by  these  vari- 
ant forms. 

In  the  next  lecture,  the  last  of  this  series,  some 
phases  of  the  Hebrew  land-law  will  be  touched  upon,  and 
an  effort  will  be  made  to  show  that  this  branch  of  the 
original  jurisdiction  of  the  sikne  ha-'ir  soon  became  a  mat- 
ter of  Federal  concern,  as  a  necessary  step  in  the  policy  of 
unifying  the  cantons  forming  the  state. 

IV 

The  ::;ikne  ha-'ir,  who  had  general  jurisdiction  of  all 
aft"airs  of  their  canton,  must  have  taken  cognizance  of  all 
controversies  relating  to  the  possession  of  land.  The  scanty 
remnants  of  the  :^ikne  ha-'ir  law  are,  however,  insufficient 


62  POLITY  OF   ANCIENT    HEBREWS — SULZBERGER 

to  show  their  procedure  in  such  cases.  The  chief  cause 
of  early  quarrels  about  land  was  the  removal  of  landmarks. 
In  a  very  early  code  this  was  accounted  a  crime  punishable 
by  death.  "Arur  he  that  removeth  another's  landmark" 
(Deut.  27,  17),  and  Hosea,  speaking  of  the  save  Judah  as 
deserving  condign  Divine  punishment,  exhausts  the  lan- 
guage of  condemnation  by  comparing  them  to  removers  of 
landmarks    (Hos.   5,   10). 

This  severe  treatment  of  what  is,  after  all,  but  a 
trespass,  would  seem  to  indicate  that  the  honest  acquisition 
of  land  was  a  thing  very  difficult,  if  not  impossible,  and 
that,  in  consequence,  men  who  were  greedy  to  enlarge  their 
holdings  resorted  to  fraud  as  the  readiest  means  to  obtain 
their  ends.  The  conclusion  is  not  remote  that  the  reason 
for  this  difficulty  in  honestly  acquiring  land  lay  in  the  policy 
of  the  Federal  government  making  land  inalienable  either 
by  deed  or  will,  to  the  end  that  each  family  should  hold  its 
estate  in  perpetuity.  Such  would  be  the  natural  course  for 
the  conquerors  of  a  settled  country.  The  soldiers  would 
probably  claim  equal  rights  in  the  division. 

This  supposition  finds  support  in  the  law  of  yabam 
as  applied  in  the  early  days  of  Hebrew  domination:  "If 
brethren  dwell  together,  and  one  of  them  die  and  have  no 
son,  the  wife  of  the  dead  shall  not  marry  without  to  a 
stranger  (ish  zar)  ;  her  husband's  brother  shall  go  unto  her 
and  take  her  for  his  wife.  And  the  first  born  son  (bekor) 
that  she  beareth  shall  succeed  to  the  name  of  his  dead 
brother"    (Deut.   25,   5.  6). 

That  the  custom  originated  in  prehistoric  antiquity, 
and  had  meanings  with  which  we  are  no  longer  acquainted, 
is  highly  probable.  The  fact,  however,  is,  as  regards  our 
subject,   unimportant.      Perhaps  the  majority  of  the  most 


POLITY   OF    ANCIENT    HEBREWS — SULZBERGER  63 

modern  customs  could,  if  we  had  the  full  evidence,  be 
traced  back  to  notions  held  by  primeval  savages.  Advanc- 
ing civilization  consists,  and  in  all  ages  has  consisted,  in 
the  reshaping  of  established  institutions,  so  as  to  conform 
to  improved  thought  and  to  become  useful  in  furthering 
progress. 

There  is  no  doubt  that  so  soon  as  the  policy  of  equality 
of  land-holding  was  adopted  by  the  Federal  government, 
the  endeavor  was  made  to  conform  the  yabam  law  to  it. 
While,  originally,  the  brother  of  the  deceased  took  the 
widow  of  the  latter  for  his  wife,  and  there  was  no  question 
of  estate  involved,  the  new  policy  carried  to  the  brother 
the  landed  estate  of  the  decedent,  to  be  held  by  him  in 
trust  for  the  first-born  son  of  the  new  marriage,  and  only 
on  the  failure  of  male  issue  of  the  new  marriage  did  he 
acquire  the  absolute  estate.  All  this  is  necessarily  implied 
in  the  provision  that  the  bekor  of  the  new  marriage  shall 
stand  in  the  place  of  the  first  husband  and  bear  his  name 
(Deut.  25,  6). 

Assuming  this,  it  would  follow  that  a  man  with  a  wife 
and  a  family  of  daughters,  though  the  owner  of  a  landed 
estate,  could  not  provide  for  the  latter.  They  would  have 
to  depend  on  the  generosity  of  their  uncle  after  he  had 
married  their  mother.  Nor  could  any  foresight  or  good  will 
of  their  father  alter  the  situation.  If  he  could  have  sold 
the  land  for  money  or  other  portable  property,  he  could 
have  given  them  the  fruits  of  the  sale,  but  the  entail  pre- 
vented this.  In  short,  to  use  the  technical  language  of  the 
English  law,  the  land  was  entailed  in  tail  male,  which 
means  that  by  no  means  whatever  could  the  owner  prevent 
his  male  descendants  from  enjoying  it.  If  male  descendants 
failed,  the  land  went  to  the  decedent's  brothers;  if  there 


64  POLITY  OF   ANCIENT    HEBREWS — SULZBERGER 

were  none,  then  to  the  brothers  of  the  decedent's  father; 
and  if  this  line  too  failed,  then  to  the  nearest  kinsman  of 
his  mishpahah.  So  much  of  the  ancient  law  we  learn  from 
Numbers  27,  9-11. 

It  must  have  been  at  an  early  day  that  a  reform  was 
demanded,  though  of  course  not  before  the  civil  government 
had  superseded  the  military  regime.  While  the  latter  was 
at  its  height,  the  soldiers  who  were  conquering  the  land 
from  its  possessors,  doubtless  claimed  it  as  the  fruit  and 
reward  of  their  exertions.  In  this  state  of  opinion  women 
had  small  chance  to  be  considered.  When,  however,  the 
statesmen  began  to  get  the  upper  hand,  the  injustice  of 
leaving  a  man's  wife  and  daughters  to  charity,  while  others 
were  in  lawful  enjoyment  of  the  family  estate,  was  recog- 
nized. The  general  law  of  Numbers  27,  8  is  but  declaratory 
of  a  precedent  which  had  been  established.  The  case  is 
fully  stated  in  the  twenty-seventh  chapter  of  Numbers. 
The  five  daughters  of  Zelophehad  appeared  before  Moses 
and  his  coadjutors,  composing  the  high  court  which  sat 
at  the  door  of  the  ohcl  mo'ed,  and  asked,  as  a  matter  of 
justice,  that  they  might  inherit  their  father's  estate,  instead 
of  its  going  to  their  uncles.  Moses  consulted  the  oracle 
(brought  their  mishpat  Upline  Jhvh  (Numb.  27,  5)  ).  The 
decision  was:  "The  daughters  of  Zelophehad  speak  right; 
let  the  inheritance  of  their  father  pass  unto  them"  (Numb. 
27,  7).  And  according  to  the  invariable  practice  this 
precedent  was  immediately  put  into  the  form  of  a  general 
statute   (Numb.  27,  8). 

This  was  a  momentous  decision.  The  mother  of  these 
daughters  would,  according  to  the  ancient  custom,  still 
marry  her    brother-in-law,  but    she    would    not    take    the 


POLITY    OJP    ANCIENT    HEBREWS — SULZBERGER  65 

family  estate  with  her.     The  daughters  would  take  it,  just 
as  if  they  had  been  sons. 

That  brothers-in-law  would  not  be  anxious  to  carry 
out  the  old  yabam  law  under  such  circumstances  is  only 
natural.  Indeed,  the  power  of  the  heiress  to  choose  her 
husband  virtually  substituted  her  for  a  son,  and  enabled 
her  to  confer  the  name  of  her  dead  father  upon  her  own 
bckor.  However  foreign  to  the  spirit  of  the  old  law  such 
a  practice  would  be,  it  would  soon  satisfy  people's  con- 
sciences, and  fashion  would  do  the  rest.  Moreover,  con- 
currently with  this  recognition  of  women  as  capable  of 
inheriting,  the  whole  tone  of  opinion  regarding  the  relation 
of  the  sexes  underwent  a  profound  change.  Especially 
powerful  was  the  trend  toward  enlarging  the  number  of 
prohibited  degrees.  In  the  old  arur  code  punishment 
(probably  death)  is  denounced  against  him  that  married 
his  step-mother  (Deut.  27,  20),  his  sister,  his  half-sister 
(Deut.  27,  22),  or  his  mother-in-law  (Deut.  27,  23). 
This  statute  was  now  amended.  A  new  list  of  capital 
crimes  was  made,  which  included,  in  addition  to  those  of 
the  arur  code,  marriage  with  a  son's  wife  (Lev.  20,  12). 
Moreover,  serious  penalties,  the  exact  nature  of  which 
cannot  now  be  determined,  were  denounced  against  mar- 
riage with  an  aunt  (Lex.  20,  19),  or  with  the  wife  of  an 
uncle  (Lev.  20,  20). 

The  feature  of  this  amended  code  which  is  most 
relevant  to  our  present  inquiry,  is  the  prohibition  to  marry 
a  brother's  wife.  It  is  not  rated  as  a  crime  punishable  by 
human  law,  but  it  is  denounced  as  niddah  (abhorrent) 
(Lev.  20,  21).  The  only  evil  consequence  threatened  is: 
"They  shall  be  childless."  That  this  provision  is  a  pointed 
condemnation  of  the  yabam  marriage,   seems   clear.     The 


66  POLITY  OF'   ANCIENT    HEBRKWS — SULZBERGER 

purpose  of  the  latter  was  the  birth  of  a  son  who  should 
stand  in  the  place  of  the  dead  man  who  had  no  son.  And 
now  it  was  solemnly  declared  that  Jhvh  himself  would 
prevent  the  attainment  of  the  object.  They  would  have  no 
son.     The  marriage  would  be  sterile. 

In  the  state  of  public  opinion  thus  indicated,  the  severe 
blow  dealt  the  yabam  law  by  the  Zelophehad  decision  was 
much  aggravated.  In  short,  fashion  and  morals  joined  in 
discrediting  the  Levirate  marriage. 

This,  however,  was  not  all.  The  great  land-owners 
of  Zelophehad's  kin  became  alarmed.  The  latter's  estate 
had  slipped  from  their  grasp  into  the  hands  of  a  bevy  of 
damsels,  whose  fancy  might  bestow  them  on  the  dreaded 
outsider  (ish  zar).  In  the  general  greed  for  increasing 
their  holdings,  land-owners  from  other  mishpahot,  if  not 
from  other  tribes,  might  come  a-wooing,  and  by  marriage 
with  the  heiresses,  deprive  the  kinsmen  of  their  cherished 
chance  to  annex  the  lands  of  failing  lines. 

To  save  what  they  could,  the  chiefs  of  the  mishpahot 
of  Gilead  appealed  to  the  High  Court  to  modify  its  decree 
of  Numbers  27,  7,  by  adding  thereto  a  limitation  of  the 
right  of  heiresses  in  the  choice  of  husbands.  They  urged 
that  without  such  limitation,  men  of  other  tribes  would 
reduce  the  state  of  Gilead  by  coming  in  and  marrying  the 
women  of  landed  estate. 

The  tribunal  heeded  the  protest  and  modified  the 
fomer  decree  by  declaring  that  the  daughters  of  Zelophehad 
might  marry  whom  they  would,  provided  only  that  their 
choice  fell  on  men  of  their  own  tribe,  in  order  that  every 
one  of  the  tribes  of  the  B'ne-Isracl  should  keep  its  own 
inheritance  (Num.  36,  1-9).  Whether  mishpahah  or  tribe 
is  here  meant  is  not  quite  clear  from  the  language  of  the 


POUTY    OF    ANCIKNT    HI;bRE:WS — SULZBERGER  6/ 

text.  The  probability,  however,  is  that  mishpahot  only  are 
intended,  and  that  by  mishpahot  we  are  to  understand 
recognizable  kinsmen.  As  late  as  the  time  of  Jeremiah,  we 
find  that  in  the  domain  of  the  priest-city  of  Anathoth,  a 
man  could  not  sell  land  to  whom  he  w^ould,  but  that  the 
nearest  kinsman  had  a  preferential  right  to  buy.  Though 
the  existence  of  a  custom  in  a  priest-city  at  a  late  period 
is  no  warrant  for  its  general  existence  at  the  time  through- 
out the  realm,  because  of  the  tenacity  with  which  the  priests 
held  on  to  their  ancient  rights  and  privileges,  yet  it  is  at 
least  good  evidence  of  ancient  customs  which  were,  in 
former  times,  general.  It  appears  that  Hanamel,  the  son 
of  Jeremiah's  uncle  Shallum,  determined  to  sell  his  land, 
and  accordingly  made  the  first  offer  to  his  cousin  Jeremiah 
as  the  one  having  the  preferential  right  (ge'ullah).  More- 
over, he  expressly  stated  that  this  preferential  right  was 
based  on  or  conjoined  with  the  right  of  inheritance  (yeru- 
sliah),  which  can  only  mean  that  Hanamel  was  childless, 
that  he  had  no  brothers,  that  his  uncles  were  dead  and  that 
Jeremiah  was  the  next  of  kin  (Jer.  32,  7-8). 

We  must  return,  however,  to  the  Zelophehad  heiresses. 
It  appears  that  the  modification  of  the  decree  did  not 
seriously  disturb  them.  They  married  their  first  cousins 
and  thus  the  estates  were  kept  in  the  family  (Numb.  36, 
II.  12). 

These  cousins,  who,  in  part,  owed  their  success'  in 
wooing  to  the  law  courts,  were  not  alone  in  their  land- 
hunger.  We  have  already  noticed  the  drastic  denunciation 
of  land-thieves  in  the  arur  code.  Despite  everything,  the 
thing  went  on.  Wealth  and  luxury  increased,  and  the  men 
newly  risen  to  opulence  were  eager  for  their  aggrandize- 
ment.    They  were  not  too  dainty  as  to  the  means  whereby 


68  POLITY  01^   ANCIENT    HEBREWS — SULZBERGER 

they  accomplished  their  purpose.  Some  of  them  doubtless 
were  of  the  ::ikne  ha-'ir,  and  that  tribunal  could  not  be 
relied  on  to  interfere  with  them.  This  is  the  meaning  of 
Isaiah's  bitter  cry:  He  looked  for  mishpat  (justice)  but 
received  mis  pah  (oppression)  ;  for  equity — and  behold 
iniquity.  Woe  unto  them  that  join  house  to  house  and 
field  to  field,  till  there  is  no  room  for  others  and  they 
remain  alone  in  the  land  (Isai.  5,  7.  8).  Their  inward 
thought  is  that  their  houses  shall  endure  forever ;  they  call 
their  lands  after  their  own  names   (Ps.  49,  12   (11)). 

The  strife  degenerated  into  a  contest  between  the  old 
families  and  the  new  rich,  and,  as  a  consequence,  the 
decaying  families  and  the  poor  in  general  fared  badly 
between  the  upper  and  nether  mill-stone. 

The  yabam  law,  which  was  one  means  of  securing  the 
inalienability  of  landed  estates,  was  treated  with  scant 
courtesy  by  the  rising  families,  was  assailed  as  immoral  by 
the  Federal  kohanim  and  statesmen,  and  had  doubtless 
fallen  under  the  social  ban.  No  appeal  to  antiquity  could 
save  it  from  falling  into  obsolescence. 

The  result  was  inevitable.  As  in  all  nations  with  a 
genius  for  jurisprudence,  the  Hebrews  employed  the  fictio 
juris,  the  legal  fiction,  to  set  aside  laws  and  customs  which 
they  dared  not  repeal  outright.  They  determined  that  the 
woman  who  could  not  marry  anyone  but  her  brother-in-law, 
sheuld  be  free  of  the  obligation,  if  the  latter  in  proper  form 
declared  he  would  not  marry  her. 

This  was  a  sul^stantial  repeal  of  the  yalnvii  law,  Ijy  the 
abandonment  of  its  only  effective  feature,  the  sanction  or 
vindicatory  part  thereof.  For  once  the  Federal  government 
and  the  cantonal  councils  were  of  one  mind.  The  ::ikiic 
ha-'ir,   as   has   been   seen,   had   the   largest  general   powers. 


POLITY    Of    ANCIEN'l    HEBREWS — SULZBERGER  69 

In  earlier  days,  when  they  were  still  enforcing  the  yabam 
law,  they  doubtless  compelled  specific  performance  of  the 
brother-in-law's  duty,  just  as  in  another  class  of  matri- 
monial cases  they  deprived  a  man  of  his  almost  indefeasi- 
ble right  to  divorce  his  wife  (Deut.  22,  13-19).  Certain 
it  is  that  they  never  hesitated  to  enforce  their  judgments 
by  punishing  men  in  body  and  estate,  and  were  by  no  means 
chary  of  inflicting  the  death  penalty  (Deut.  19,  12.  21 ;  22, 
21.  22.   24.  25). 

That  the  violation  of  the  yabam  law  might  well  be 
punished  by  death  appears  from  the  story  of  Tamar, 
Judah's  daughter-in-law,  whose  husband  Onan  was  slain 
by  Jhvh  for  fraud  on  this  same  law  (Gen.  38,  i-io). 

The  particular  ceremony  by  which  legal  fiction  effected 
the  gradual  disuse  of  the  yabam  law  was  what  came  in  later 
times  to  be  called  the  halisah.  It  is  fully  described  in  Deut. 
25,  5-10.  The  details  are  not  all  comprehensible.  They 
doubtless,  in  part  at  least,  simulate  the  proceedings  which 
were  had  when  the  trial  was  a  very  real  one  with  serious 
consequences  to  the  defendant.  The  first  step  evidently 
was  that  the  widow  explicitly  asked  her  brother-in-law  to 
marry  her,  and  he  declined.  Thereupon  she  instituted  suit, 
that  is,  she  went  to  the  city  gate,  to  the  zekenim,  and  made 
this  formal  complaint:  My  husband's  brother  refuses  to 
marry  me,  will  not  comply  with  the  yabam  law.  Where- 
upon the  zikne  ha-'ir  summoned  him.  He  appeared.  They 
informed  him  what  the  complaint  was.  The  contingency 
of  his  replying  that  the  complaint  is  not  true,  that  he  is 
quite  ready  to  marry  the  woman,  is  not  mentioned.  His 
refusal  was  taken  for  granted.  If  he  stood  by  it  and  said, 
I  do  not  wish  to  take  her,  this  confession  of  his  guilt  was 
followed  by  no  judgment  of  the  tribunal.     No  redress  was 


70  POLITY  OF    ANCIENT    HEBREWS — SULZBERGER 

given  to  the  complainant,  no  punishment  was  decreed  against 
the  defendant.  What  happened  was  that  the  woman  drew 
off  one  of  his  shoes,  ceremoniously  spat  in  his  presence,  and 
uttered  an  antique  formula,  which  probably  had  once  a 
sinister  meaning,  but  had  become  harmless  and  even  unin- 
telligible. These  were  the  words :  "So  shall  it  be  done  unto 
that  man  that  will  not  build  up  his  brother's  house.  His 
name  shall  be  called  in  Israel,  The  house  of  him  of  the 
loosed  shoe."  This  accomplished,  the  parties  went  their 
way,  and  probably  the  woman  was  free  to  marry  whom  she 
would,  which,  after  all,  was  what  everybody  had  intended 
from  the  first. 

There  is  but  one  other  instance  of  zikne  ha-'ir  law 
which  concerns  us  in  the  present  inquiry.  It  occurs  in  the 
Book  of  Ruth. 

According  to  the  author's  presentation,  the  duty  which 
the  law,  as  we  know  it,  puts  upon  the  yabam  or  husband's 
brother,  attaches  to  the  go'cl  or  near  kinsman  of  the 
mislipahah.  This  duty,  moreover,  is  not  primary,  but  in- 
cidental to  the  exercise  of  the  right  of  ge'ullah,  which  is  the 
preferential  right  of  the  next  of  kin  to  purchase  lands 
which  a  member  of  the  mishpahah  wishes  to  sell,  before 
they  can  be  sold  to  a  buyer  from  without.  The  yabatn  duty, 
in  short,  is  a  mere  incident  of  the  ge'ullah.  This  right  of 
ge'ullah  is  assignable  by  one  go'el  to  another  in  the  order 
of  succession,  which  is  determined  by  nearness  of  kinship, 
and  such  assignment  or  waiver  carries  with  it  no  reproach 
to  anybody.  In  order  that  the  transaction  may  be  legally 
effective,  certain  forms  are  necessary.  It  must  be  at  the 
gate,  in  the  presence  of  at  least  a  quorum  (ten)  of  the 
zekcnim.  The  assignor,  next  of  kin,  addressing  his  suc- 
cessor, says:  "You  may  buy  it  for  yourself,"  and  with  the 


POLITY   OF   ANCIENT    HEBREWS — SULZBERGER  7I 

words  delivers  to  him  the  shoe  which  he  has  just  drawn 
from  his  foot.  The  assignee  takes  the  shoe,  and,  address- 
ing the  sekenim  and  the  by-standers,  says:  "Ye  are  wit- 
nesses this  day:"  (then  formally  recites  what  he  has 
acquired)  and  closes  by  repeating  the  words:  "Ye  are  wit- 
nesses {'edim)  this  day."  The  aekenim  and  the  by-standers 
say  in  chorus;  'cdim  (witnesses),  and  the  transaction  is 
closed, — is  firm  and  stable  forever  (lekayem  kol  dabar) 
(Ruth  4,  7). 

Needless  to  say,  there  is  no  tittle  of  evidence  that 
there  ever  was  in  Israel  a  compound  ge'ullah-yabam  law 
such  as  is  here  described.  Moreover,  there  is  reason  to 
believe  that  the  author  knew  this  perfectly  well,  having 
before  him  all  the  data  accessible  to  us.  His  acquaintance 
with  the  most  ancient  form  of  yabam  law,  as  exemplified 
in  the  story  of  Tamar  (Gen.  38,  6-30)  is  attested  by  the 
utterances  of  Ruth  i,  11  and  4,  12.  That  he  was  aware  of 
the  custom  which  allowed  the  woman  to  propose  to  the 
yabam  (Deut.  25,  7)  is  seen  in  Ruth  3,  9,  and  that  the 
drawn-ofif  shoe  plays  a  part  in  it  (Deut.  25,  5-10)  he  tells 
in  Ruth  4,  7.  8. 

In  view  of  these  facts,  it  would  be  rash  to  doubt  his 
knowledge  of  the  law  of  Numbers  27,  7-10,  and  one  can 
hardly  go  wrong  in  supposing  that  he  had  read  the  ge'ullah 
transaction  of  Jeremiah  32,  7-12. 

Having  this  knowledge,  it  was  as  plain  to  him  as  to 
us  that  when  Mahlon  died,  leaving  no  children,  no  broth- 
ers and  no  uncles,  the  inheritance  went  to  the  next  of  kin 
(Numb.  27,  11),  the  pcloni  almoni  (Mr.  So  and  So)  of 
Ruth  4.  There  was  no  power  either  in  Naomi  or  in  Ruth  to 
sell,  because  they  had  no  title  of  any  kind.  Peloni  almoni  was 


^2  POUTV  OF   ANCIENT    HgBRElWS — SULZBE;rGER 

the  absolute  owner.  There  was  no  room,  therefore,  for 
ge'uWah  and,  a  fortiori,  none  for  yabam  duty. 

The  author,  however,  wrote  his  imaginary  law  for  a 
purpose.  He  was  creating  one  of  the  great  masterpieces 
of  the  world's  literature,  with  the  design  to  show  that  mar- 
riage with  non-Hebrew  women  might  not  only  be  harmless, 
but  highly  beneficial  in  bringing  into  the  fold  the  most  noble 
and  charming  of  foreign  damsels.  In  the  restricted  life  of 
Eastern  women,  he  could  find  no  class  to  whom  was  ac- 
corded the  liberty  of  making  advances,  save  the  childless 
widow,  and  she  only  to  the  yabam.  The  situation  rendered 
an  actual  brother-in-law  impossible,  so  his  part  was  taken 
by  the  noblest  gentleman  of  Bethlehem.  Everything  runs 
on  to  a  happy  ending,  and  the  baby-boy  Obed  becomes  the 
ancestor  of  King  David. 

We  may  therefore,  with  safety,  eliminate  from  the 
discussion  the  law  as  laid  down  in  Ruth,  though  on  certain 
minor  points  it  may  be  informing. 

The  only  great  land-law  remaining  to  be  considered  is 
that  of  Leviticus  (25,  10-34).  Its  salient  provisions  are 
as  follows : 

"And  ye  shall  hallow  the  fiftieth  year  and  proclaim 
liberty  (deror)  throughout  the  land  to  all  the  inhabitants 
thereof:  it  shall  be  a  jubilee  unto  you;  and  ye  shall  return 
every  man  unto  his  possession  (ahusaah),  and  ye  shall 
return  every  man  unto  his  family  (mishpahah)"  (Lev.  25, 
10). 

"In  the  year  of  this  jubilee  ye  shall  return  every  man 
unto  his  possession"   {ahuzzah)    (Lev.  25,  13). 

"According  to  the  number  of  years  after  the  jubilee 
thou  shalt  buy  of  thy  neighbor;  according  to  the  number  of 
years  of  the  fruits  he  shall  sell  unto  thee:"  (Lev.  25,  15). 


POLITY   OF   ANCIENT    HJjBkJjWS — SULZBERGER  73 

"According  to  the  greater  number  of  years  thou  shalt 
increase  the  price  thereof,  and  according  to  the  fewness  of 
years  thou  shalt  diminish  the  price  of  it;  for  it  is  a  number 
of  crops  he  is  selhng  thee"   (Lev.  25,   16). 

''The  land  shall  not  be  sold  in  perpetuity  (Lev.  25,  23). 

"Ye  shall  grant  ge'ullah  (redemption)  for  land"  (Lev. 
25,   24). 

"If  "thy  brother  be  waxen  poor,  and  hath  sold  away 
some  of  his  ahuzzah  (estate),  and  his  next  go' el  (kinsman) 
come  to  redeem  it,  he  shall  have  the  right  to  do  so"  (Lev. 
25,  25). 

"If  the  man  have  no  go' el,  but  can  gather  the  means  to 
redeem  it"  (Lev.  25,  26), 

"Then  let  him  count  the  value  of  the  years  since  the 
sale  (deduct  that  sum  from  the  purchase  money)  and  pay 
the  balance  unto  the  man  to  whom  he  sold  it :  then  he  may 
return  to  his  ahuzzah"  (Lev.  25,  27). 

"If  he  cannot  gather  the  means  to  redeem  it,  then  it 
shall  remain  in  the  buyer's  possession  until  the  year  of 
jubilee :  and  in  the  year  of  jubilee  he  is  entitled  to  return 
to  his  ahuzzah"  (Lev.  25,  28). 

"If  a  man  sell  a  dwelling-house  in  a  walled  city,  he 
may  redeem  it  within  a  whole  year  after  it  is  sold"  (Lev. 
25,  29). 

"If  it  be  not  redeemed  within  the  space  of  a  full  year, 
it  shall  be  the  buyer's  in  perpetuity  throughout  the  genera- 
tions; it  does  not  revert  in  the  jubilee"  (Lev.  25,  30). 

"But  houses  in  haserim  (villages)  which  have  no  wall 
round  about  them  are  to  be  treated  as  fields:  they  are  sub- 
ject to  ge'ullah  and  revert  in  the  jubilee"  (Lev.  25,  31). 


74  POUTY  OF    ANCIENT    HEBREWS — SULZBERGER 

"As  to  the  Levite  cities — the  houses  of  the  cities  of 
their  possession,  are  subject  to  perpetual  ge'ullah  for  the 
Levites"   (Lev.  25,  32). 

"And  if  a  man  of  the  Levites  fail  to  redeem  a  house 
in  a  Levite  city  which  he  has  sold,  it  reverts  to  him  in  the 
jubilee"  (Lev.  25,  33). 

"The  field  in  the  migrasJi  of  their  (Levites")  cities  may 
not  be  sold;  it  is  an  ahii:;aah  in  perpetuity"   (Lev.  25,  34). 

A  mere  reading  of  this  jubilee-statute  shows  that  it 
has  no  reference  to  the  days  when  the  sikne  ha-'ir  were  the 
great  men  of  the  country.  The  earliest  alkisions  to  it  are 
found  in  Jeremiah  and  Ezekiel.  The  latter  speaks  of  the 
seller  returning  and  makes  a  gloomy  prediction  that  it  will 
not  happen,  the  trumpet  that  has  been  blown,  presaging 
misery  instead  of  happiness  (Ezek.  7,  12.  13.  14). 

He  also  points  out  that  royal  grants  to  members  of  the 
royal  family  are  nahalah,  that  is,  are  not  to  revert,  but  that 
royal  grants  to  others  revert  in  the  deror  year  (Ezek.  46, 
16.  17). 

And  this  allusion  to  the  blowing  of  the  trumpet  and 
to  the  dcror  year  recalls  the  statute  {berit,  covenant)  made 
during  the  reign  of  Zedekiah  in  the  most  solemn  fashion 
before  JnvH,  to  wit:  They  cut  a  calf  in  twain, 
and  passed  between  the  parts  thereof,  the  sarim 
of  Judah,  and  the  sarim  of  Jerusalem,  the  sarisim, 
the  kohanim,  and  kol  'am  ha-ares.  By  the  terms 
of  this  deror  law,  every  man  was  bound  to  free 
his  Hebrew  slaves.  On  that  occasion  Jeremiah  de- 
nounced the  non-observance  of  the  old  law  forbidding 
Hebrew  slavery,  and  also  castigated  those  who  were  violat- 
ing the  new  statute  (Jer.  34,  8-22). 


POLITY   OF   ANCIENT    HEBREWS — SULZBERGER  75 

The  connection  between  Leviticus  25  and  these  pass- 
ages from  Jeremiah  and  Ezekiel  seem  clear. 

We  are,  however,  not  concerned  here  with  the  slavery- 
question,  though  it  would  appear  to  have  been  inseparably 
connected  with  the  land  question,  in  view  of  Ezekiel's 
words  wherein  the  expression  deror  year  is  used  for  the 
jubilee  year  of  Leviticus. 

We  may  take  it  for  granted  that  the  land-greed  of 
which  something  has  been  already  said,  did  not  abate  while 
the  cantonal  magnates  had  their  own  way.  The  jubilee 
statute  seems  to  be  a  compromise  between  the  parties  to 
this  age-long  contest.  By  it  the  old  Federal  policy  of  the 
inalienability  of  land  was  definitely  abandoned.  The  zikne 
ha-'ir,  the  magnates  who  dwelt  in  the  walled  cities,  who 
were,  in  fact,  the  great  land  barons,  had  finally  triumphed, 
though  concessions  had  to  be  made  to  other  interests.  By 
the  terms  of  the  compromise,  the  absolute  inalienability  of 
land  was  abolished ;  houses  in  cities  were  made  practically 
alienable,  and  agricultural  lands  and  village-houses,  while 
they  could  not  be  sold  in  perpetuity,  could  nevertheless  be 
aliened  by  the  owner,  on  condition  that  they  should  revert 
in  the  jubilee  year  and  be  subject  to  ge'ullah  at  any  time 
before.  The  Levites  (kohanim)  succeeded  in  securing  for 
themselves  the  right  of  ge'ullah  and  of  jubilee-reversion 
in  their  walled  cities,  while  as  to  their  migrash  fields  they 
maintained  the  ancient  law  of  total  inalienability. 

The  result  was  perhaps  as  good  as  could  have  been 
expected.  The  growth  of  commerce  and  of  wealth  had 
brought  into  more  active  operation  economic  laws  which 
defeated  the  plans  devised  by  the  Federalists  in  the  earlier 
times  of  greater  simplicity.  The  great  barons  were  now 
authorized  by  law  to  acquire  perpetual  estates  in  their  val- 


76  POLITY  OF    ANCIENT    HEBREWS — SULZBERGER 

uable  city  holdings,  and  to  extend  them  without  hmit ;  their 
purchased  agricultural  estates,  before  held  in  defiance  of 
ancient  law,  were  made  secure  until  the  deror  year,  and  this 
provision  must  have  added  to  their  power  and  influence. 

The  Levites  (kohanim)  retained  or  reconquered  the 
placid  security  of  primitive  times,  while  the  masses  of  the 
farmers,  though  they  derived  only  moderate  benefits  during 
their  active  lives,  could  at  least  hope  that  their  children's 
condition  would  be  permanently  improved. 

The  achievement,  though  far  short  of  the  hopes  of  the 
optimists,  was  greater  than  it  may  seem.  The  old  law  of 
inalienability  had  been  so  uniformly  disregarded  as  to  have 
become  practically  obsolete,  and  the  lands  of  the  poor  were 
being  gradually  absorbed  by  the  land-barons.  Any  degree 
of  amelioration  was  an  advance,  and  none  could  have  been 
secured  if  the  influence  of  the  common  people  had  not 
steadily  grown.  At  least  one  of  the  great  estates  of  the 
realm,  the  'am  ha-arcs,  was  making  a  sturdy  fight  for  the 
rights  of  the  masses.  In  the  struggle  for  the  Zedekiah 
statute,  they  took  a  leading  part,  and  though  the  powerful 
classes  were  tempted  to  evade  the  laws  which  hampered 
their  efiforts  for  control  of  all  kinds,  some  progress  was 
always  made. 

We  must  not,  however,  prolong  remarks  on  a  subject 
which  is  too  remote  from  our  main  theme,  to  be  adequately 
treated  in  this  connection.  There  are  many  questions  of 
equal  interest  which  must  be  discussed  before  a  proper 
understanding  of  the  poHty  of  the  ancient  Hebrews  can  be 
attained.  It  is  necessary  to  understand  how  the  conflict  be- 
tween the  centrifugal  forces,  represented  by  the  sikne 
ha-ir,  and  the  centripetal  forces  of  the  nation  was  carried 
on,  and  by  whose  activity  it  was  finally  decided  in  favor 


POUTY    OF   ANCIENT    HEBREWS — SULZBERGER  7/ 

of  the  latter.  This  involves  an  investigation  into  the  part 
played  by  the  Nehiim  and  the  Levites  (kohanim),  and  by 
the  former  I  mean,  not  the  writing  prophets,  but  the  guild 
which  is  typified  by  the  illustrious  old  hero  Elijah.  When 
I  first  began  these  investigations  I  intended  to  take  up  all 
the  laws  recorded  in  the  Bible,  with  the  design  of  develop- 
ing therefrom  a  complete  scheme  of  the  Hebrew  Consti- 
tution and  laws.  It  soon  became  apparent  that  in  the  sikne 
ha-'ir  laws  we  had  a  system  more  ancient  than  the  accepted 
codes.  Further  examination  revealed  the  cantonal  basis  of 
the  Federal  government  and  showed  clearly  the  necessity 
of  going  to  the  bottom  of  the  sikne  ha—'ir  laws.  The 
result  has  been  that  what  was  conceived  to  be  the  main 
subject  has  scarcely  been  touched  upon,  and  its  considera- 
tion must  be  postponed  to  a  future  occasion. 

It  remains  only  to  summarize  what  I  conceive  to  be 
the  result  of  this  preliminary  work.  _ 

At  the  Exodus  the  Hebrews  were  arrayed  as  tribes 
with  sub-divisions.  As  they  advanced  and  the  necessities 
of  war  dictated  a  more  efficient  organization,  they  formed 
into  regiments  (alaphim)  with  proper  sub-divisions  and 
aggregations.  Both  forms  of  organization  were  in  their 
nature  military,  the  latter  specifically  so.  As  they  con- 
quered settled  territory,  with  established  governments,  they 
learned  a  new  lesson.  The  pre-Israelite  inhabitants  lived 
in  many  cantons,  each  constituting  a  little  kingdom,  called 
a  "city."  The  name  was  not  literally  exact.  The  canton 
had  in  it,  besides  the  walled  city,  certain  towns,  villages, 
and  fields,  and  sometimes  it  had  one  or  more  additional 
cities,  all  looking  up  to  the  royal  city,  which  was  the  seat 
of  government  where  the  King  held  his  court.  The  He- 
brews   recognized    and    adopted    this    subdivision    of   the 


78  POLITY  OF    ANCIENT    HEBREWS — SULZBERGER 

country,  and  in  part  accepted  the  mode  of  government  as 
a  practical  solution  of  the  new  and  intricate  problems  which 
they  had  to  solve.  They,  however,  abolished  royalty. 
Councils,  somehow  representative  in  their  make-up,  became 
the  ruling  power  in  these  little  cantons,  which  were  to  be 
the  constituent  elements  of  a  central  Federal  government. 
The  conquest  was  slow,  and  the  progress  of  nationalization 
tardy. J  The  policy  of  exterminating  the  natives,  which  was 
the  obvious  one  for  an  invading  horde  that  started  out  to 
take  possession  of  a  whole  country,  had  to  be  abandoned. 
Concessions  were  made  to  the  natives,  who,  under  the  name 
of  gerim,  exercised  much  influence  in  the  Hebrew  cantons, 
which  superseded  the  old  city-states.  The  national  policy 
of  declaring  Jhvh  as  the  one  God  of  the  country  was 
hindered  at  every  step  by  the  stubborn  conservatism  which 
adhered  to  the  multifarious  cantonal  gods,  and  the  central 
government  established  at  Shiloh  found  great  difficulty 
in  bringing  the  cantonal  councils  to  a  lively  comprehension 
of  the  importance  of  stamping  out  the  old  worship. 

There  was  one  other  leading  feature  of  policy  in  the 
new  nation.  The  land  for  which  the  Hebrews  so  longed 
was  to  be  divided  as  equally  as  possible  among  those  who 
had  won  it  by  their  blood.  In  this  matter,  too,  the  central 
government  had  to  rely  on  effective  administration  by  the 
cantonal  councils.  The  obstacles  encountered  were  great. 
Leading  chieftains  naturally  claimed  greater  shares,  many 
natives  kept  their  holdings,  and  the  theoretical  idea  of 
equality,  which  would,  under  the  most  favorable  circum- 
stances, have  been  only  partially  translated  into  practice, 
was  but  slimly  carried  out.  The  principle,  however,  that 
family  land  was  inalienable  was  adopted  as  law.  Had  this 
been  consistently  carried  out,  there  would  not  have  arisen 


POLITY    OF   ANCIENT    HEBREWS — SULZBERGER  79 

a  slavery  question.  Unfortunately,  however,  though  shut 
out  at  the  front  door,  it  slunk  in  at  the  side.  The  ancient 
severe  notions  of  debtors'  law  were  at  first  accepted.  The 
new  farmers  were  not  all  equally  skilled  or  capable.  Some 
of  them  had  to  borrow,  and  the  penalty  of  not  paying  was 
slavery.  Men  with  talents  for  accumulation  were  then, 
as  now,  alert  to  seize  opportunity.  So  long  as  they  kept 
within  the  law,  they  felt  no  reproach  of  conscience,  and 
often  they  went  beyond  in  order  to  attain  their  ends.  Many 
of  the  farmers  fell  into  debt,  and  not  only  lost  their  hold- 
ings, but  their  liberty  and  that  of  their  children.  As  the 
state  grew  in  wealth,  the  application  of  economic  laws 
became  more  and  more  certain,  and  though  the  state  and 
the  successful  classes  prospered,  the  poor,  at  the  other  end, 
were  badly  off.  The  most  energetic  efforts  of  the  central 
government  to  ward  off  these  evils  fell  far  short  of  success. 
The  rising  men  held  the  power  in  the  cantonal  councils,  and 
they  favored  their  class. 

There  was  thus  a  steady  conflict  between  the  central 
government  and  the  cantonal  governments,  the  latter  fol- 
lowing local  policies  and  the  former  working  for  a  larger, 
freer,  unified  state. 

The  removal  of  the  jurisdiction  over  s-a-r-a-h  from  the 
cantonal  to  the  Federal  courts  was  a  long  step  forward. 
The  struggle  to  maintain  the  Federal  land  laws  was  less 
successful,  but,  in  the  end,  a  partial  victory  was  achieved 
by  the  Nationalists,  who  had  added  to  their  forces  a  new 
element  by  the  introduction  of  representatives  of  the 
poorer  classes  (dallim)  into  the  great  Federal  council 
{'am  ha-ares).  The  rights  of  the  masses  came  to  be  more 
and  more  regarded,  and  the  aristocratic  tendencies  of  the 
country  magnates,  sitting  as  sikne  ha-'ir,  were  curbed  by 


8o  POLITY  OF   ANCIENT    HEBREWS — SULZBERGER 

joining  with  them  Federal  judges  with  plenary  powers  (the 
shophctim  of  the  later  period),  and  by  the  establishment  of 
Federal  courts,  with  superior  jurisdiction  in  cases  involving 
great  national  policies.  The  primacy  of  the  nation  was 
finally  assured  and  the  zikne  ha-'ir  sank  to  a  subordinate 
position. 

How  deeply  this  nationalization  was  rooted  in  the 
minds  and  hearts  of  the  people  we  can  learn  from  the  state 
of  affairs  in  Ezra's  time,  more  than  a  century  after  the 
downfall  of  the  old  Judean  state.  The  burning  question 
was  that  of  intermarriage.  That  it  shook  the  state  to  its 
center  was  inevitable.  Great  personages  had  married  non- 
Hebrew  women,  and  all  that  affection,  political  influence, 
and  social  power  could  effect  to  avoid  the  disruption  of 
families  was  put  in  motion.  Doubtless  the  great  literary 
genius  of  the  Book  of  Ruth  was  evoked  by  the  sad  situation. 

Ezra,  austere,  single-minded,  and  inflexible,  insisted  on 
his  view  as  the  sole  salvation  of  church  and  state,  and 
however  bitter  the  remedy,  the  wisest  men  of  the  country 
agreed  with  him. 

A  general  convention  was  called  to  be  held  at  Jerusalem 
(Ezra  lO,  7-9).  It  was  soon  seen  that  the  task  of  righting 
present  conditions  could  not  be  accomplished  in  a  day  or 
two.  The  resolution  was  reached,  that  a  special  court 
should  be  instituted  to  hear  the  cases,  the  work  being  so 
arranged  that  it  could  be  finally  completed  in  three  months. 
And  this  was  the  manner  of  it:  The  men  who  had  taken 
alien -wives  were  summoned  to  appear,  canton  by  canton, 
at  stated  times,  bringing  with  them  their  ziknc  ha-'ir  and 
their  shophctim,  and  then  the  special  Federal  tribunal  de- 
cided each  case  on  the  merits   (Ezra  10,   14). 


POLITY  OF   ANCIENT  HEBREWS — SULZBERGER  8l 

We  see  here  completed  the  process  which  has  been 
described.  The  zikne  ha-'ir  are  still  a  body  representing 
their  canton,  familiar  with  its  people,  its  customs ;  the 
shophctim  are  their  legal  advisers  on  the  law  as  modified  by 
Federal  policies,  and  the  Federal  tribunal  at  Jerusalem  is 
bound  to  hear  what  they  can  say,  and  its  decision  is 
supreme,  binding,   and   final. 

It  is  in  the  light  of  these  considerations  that  we  must 
view  the  sikne  ha-'ir  law,  which  has  been  the  main  theme 
of  these  lectures.  If  they  have  any  value,  it  is  in  making 
clear  that  the  state  was  always  viewed  as  a  bundle  of  cities, 
and  that  under  such  circumstances  the  volume  of  sikne 
ha-'ir  law  must  have  been  very  great ;  that  the  instances  and 
the  statutes  of  that  law  which  survive  are  but  a  small  frag- 
ment ;  that  scanty  as  are  the  sources,  they  are  still  the  best 
for  learning  the  foundations  of  the  Federal  law  which 
superseded  the  canton  law. 

That  the  laws  of  the  Pentateuch  can  be  better  under- 
stood when  we  appreciate  these  facts,  seems  clear.  May 
time  and  opportunity  be  given  me  to  continue  the  task. 

In  any  event,  I  may  be  permitted  to  express  the  hope 
that  others  who  are  interested  in  the  subject  may  take  it  up 
and  add  their  contributions  to  the  work  of  giving  us  a  better 
understanding  of  the  constitutional  and  legal  history  of  the 
ancient  Hebrews. 


INDEXES 


BIBLICAL  PASSAGES  CONSIDERED 


Genesis.  page 

4,   17   14 

20,   I    14 

23,   3-20    34 

23,  4    19 

26,   33    14 

28,   19    14 

34,  8-27   28 

38,   i-io   69 

38,  6-30   71 

46,  27   4 

Exodus. 

2,  22  19 

3,  II  35 

4,  10  35 

12,  49   20 

13,  18    10 

17,  16   16 

18,  3    19 

18,   13    36 

18,  21    8,  9 

19,  5    4 

20,  7    59 

20,  10  20,  27 

21,  15-  17  52 

22,  9  (10)    55 

22,  19  (20)    ....   57,  59,  61 

22,  20  (21)    20 

23,  9.  12  20 

32,  26.  27  27 

Leviticus. 

19,  33-  34 20 

20,  2.  4 58,  59 

20,  5    58 

20,  9    52 


Leviticus,    (continued)       page 

20,  12.  19.  20.  21   65 

24,  11-16.  23  60,  61 

24,  14   55 

24,  15.  16  60 

24,  22   20 

25,  10-34   72 

25,  10.  13.  IS   72 

25,  16.  23.  24.  25.  26.  27. 

28.  29.  30.  31  73 

25,  32.  33-  34 74 

25,  45.  47-49  21 

Numbers. 

I,  16  8 

6,  27  59 

9,  14    20 

10,  35.   36    5 

21,  24.  25.  32.  34.  35  ...  13 

25,  1-5  21,  40 

25,   5-9    21 

25,    11-13    22 

27,  5    64 

27,   7-10    71 

27,  7  64,  66 

27,  8.  9-1 1   64 

27,   II    71 

32,  1-33.  41.  42 13 

35,   13    21 

35,  24.  25  50 

36,  1-9    66 

36,   11-12    67 

Deuteronomy. 

I,  16  20 

I,  28   28 

3,  5   27 


85 


86 


P.IBLICAIv   PASSAGES   CONSIDERED 


Deuteronomy,    (con.)         page 

5,   II    59 

5,  14  20,  27 

6,  9   27 

10,  19    20 

11,  20     27 

12,  15.  17-  18 27 

13,  2.  3   (1-2)    54 

13,  6  (5)    53,  54 

13,  7-11    (6-10)    55 

14,  21   '^1 

14,  28.  29  20 

15,  7    27 

16,  S.  II  27 

17,  2-7    58 

17,  7    59 

18,  20   59 

19,  12,  21   69 

19,   15    57 

19,   16    56 

19,  17-19.  21    57 

21.   1-9    48 

21,  5    50 

21,  18-21   35,  51 

22,  9    49 

22.  13-21    48,  69 

22,  21.  22.  24.  25  6g 

22,  23-27    49 

24,  14-  15-  17 20 

25,  5-10 69,  71 

25,  5.  6   62 

25,  6   63 

25.  7    71 

25,  19   16 

26,  11-13    20 

27,  15   61 

27,   17    62 

27,  20.  22.  23  65 

29,   10   19 

31,  12    19,  27 

Z2,  8-12   5 

32,  30   10 

2>},>  9    22 

33,  17    10 


Joshua.  p.^ge 

I,  14   10 

4,   12   10 

6,  18 7 

7,  14-18    9 

7,  16-18    7 

8,  35    19 

9,  3-27    29 

9,   23-27    30 

9,   2-7    22 

12,  9-24    15 

13,  17-21    26 

13,   17.  23-28  15 

13,  28    13 

13,  30.  31    26 

15,   21-62    26 

15,   63    17 

18,   I    22 

18,  I.  8  31 

18,  12-28    26 

19,  15.  22.  30.  38.  41-47- •  26 

19,  51    31 

20,  4.  5.  6  50 

20,  9   21 

22,  9    43 

22,   12    31 

Judges. 

I,   19.  21.  27.  29.  30.  31 

32.  33.  35  17 

3,  19   36 

4,  5    12 

5,  16.  17  42 

6,  1-6    16 

6,  8.   II.  24-32   36 

6,  15    8 

7,  7-  22  39 

7,   II    10 

7,  23.  24  39 

7,  23-25    16 

8,  4-17    39 

8,  22.  27  41 

9,  1-6    32 

9,  2    16 

9,  22    II 


BIBLICAL    PASSAGES    CONSIDERED 


87 


Judges,    (continued)            page 
ii>  4   43 

12,  2.  4-6  42 

12,  4-  6  43 

12,   7    24,  42 

17,  6   32 

20,   I    44 

20,   10    10 

20,   14    24 

20,  47    44 

21,  9    44 

21,   19    31 

21,  23   24 

21,  25    32 

I  Samuel. 

1,  3   41 

2,  13-17-  14  41 

3,  20   41 

4,  18 12 

6,  15   46 

7,  16.  17  12 

9,  21    35 

10,  17-25    8 

11,  1-15    45 

16,  4    47 

18,  6   24 

18,  8    10 

21,  1-9    30 

22,  9-23    30 

II  Samuel. 

2,    1-3    ••••• 33 

6,  2   59 

15.  19-22 19 

15.  27   55 

21,   i-io   30 

21.  i-ii   28 

24,  9   II 

I  Kings. 

2,  26   46 

3.  4-15    31 


I  Kings,   (continued)  page 

4,  7-19    II 

8,   16.  29   59 

8,  41-43    19 

9,  3    59 

IT,  28.  31   1 1 

11,  36  59 

12,  16  ., II 

12,   17  24 

15.  20  24 

21.  8.  12  47 

22,  19   36 

II  Kings. 

2,   19   48 

•4.   13    47 

10,  1-3  47 

17.  24.  26  24 

21,  4-  7   59 

22,  14    30 

23,  5-  19  24 

2T,,   17   48 

23,  27    59 

Isaiah. 

9.  3   (4)    16 

9,   14   53 

5,  7.8  68 

21,   5    10 

30,   I 53 

40,  9    24 

44,   26    24 

65,   2-7    53 

Jeremiah. 

I,   I 46 

I,  6   ....;; ..35 

4.  4    47 

4,  16    24 

5,  23    53 

7,   12    22 

7,   17    25 

7,  17-  34  47 

7,   34    24 


88 


BIBLICAL    PASSAGES    CONSIDERED 


Jeremiah,    (continued)       page 

8,  I    47 

9,  10   (ii)    25 

10,  22    25 

11,  6.  12  25 

II,    21     46 

17,  25    47 

25.  15.  18  25 

26,  2    25 

28,  16   53 

29,  32   53 

32,  7.  8  67 

32,  7-12    71 

33,  10    24 

34,  8-22  74 

34,  22    25 

36,   9    25 

40,  5    25 

44,  2.  6.  17 25 

44,  6.  17  26 

EzEKlEL. 

7,  12.   13.   14   74 

39,    9    26 

46,  16.  17  74 

HosEA. 

4,  15-  16  53 

5,  10   62 

9,    1-15    53 

MiCAH. 

5,   I    9 

Habakuk. 

2,  18.  19 53 


ZEPHANIAH.  PAGE 

I,  10  30 

Zechariah. 

I,    12    26 

PSAtMS. 

49,  12  (11)    68 

Proverbs. 

6,  12.  13  53 

20,  20   52 

21,  28   55 

23,  20.  21   54 

28,  7    54 

Ruth. 

1,  II 71 

3,  9    71 

4,  7.  8.  12   71 

Ezra. 

10,  7-9.  14 80 

I  Chronicles. 

13,  6   59 

16,  39   31 

21,  5.  6  II 

II  Chronicles. 

2,  16  (17)   20 

6,  5.  6.  7.  20 59 

6,  32.  33  20 

20,  8.  9  59 

32,  21    10 

33,  4-  7  59 


INDEX 

PAGE 

Abiezer,  the  clan  of 31,  34,  38 

Abimelech,  king  of  Shechem  11,  16,  31,  32 

Aborigines  of  Canaan    16-18 

Abraham    14,  19,  27,  32-34 

Achan,  case  of,    7,  8 

ahuzzah   (estate)    , 22,,  72,  73 

Ai 7,  22,  29 

alaphim,  see  elcph. 

'am,  ha-'aiii  (council,  trial-court)    3,  36,  59 

ha-'ani    (the    army)     40 

'am  ha-ares  (federal  assembly)    3,  4,  76,  79 

-(federal   trial-court)    58,  59 

-of    Hittites    I9,  33 

'amad  'al  (act  or  serve)    36 

Ammonites    42,   44,  45 

Amorites,    13,  17 

anashiin    (council)     , 4 

anshe  Anathoth    46 

aiishe    Beth-Shemesh    46 

anshe  ha-'ir  28,  2,2,,  35,  36,  39,  48,  49,  54 

kol  anshe  'iro   52 

anshe    Jabesh    45 

anshe    Penuel    38 

anshe  Shechem   32 

anshe    Succoth    38 

Anathoth,  priest  city,    46,  47 

Ark  of  the  Covenant   7,  8,  59 

Army  Organization   7-io,  23,  40,  64,  77 

arur  (death  penalty)    52,  61,  65,  67 

arur  code    65,  67 

'asarot  (squads  of  ten)    8 

Asher  17,  26,  39 

Asherah    , 34,   35 

Asylum   City    '. 50 

Baal    34,  35,  36,  51 

Baal-Peor    21,  40 

89 


go  INDEX 

PAGE 

bamah    (high-place)     30 

banot  (dependent  cities )    13.  i5.  I7 

bc'alim    (council )    4.  33 

ba'ale    Shechem    31 

Bedouins,  incursions  of   15.  38-  39 

bekor  (first-born  son) 62.  63,  65 

Benjamites,  war  against    44 

ben  sorer  u-moreh  (missionary  apostate)   51-54 

berit    (covenant,   statute ) 74 

bet  ab,  bet  abot  ( family )    7,  8.  1 1,  34 

bet  Elohim   (temple)    28,  30 

Bethlehem     9.  47 

Beth-Shemesh    9-  46 

Blaspheming  the  slieiii.  see  sarah. 
B'ne  Amnion,  see  Ammonites. 

B'ne.  Benjamin    24 

B'ne   Gad    13 

B'ne   Heth    3^ 

B'ne  Israel 12,  18,  24,  57,  61,  66 

B'ne  Jacob    28 

B'ne   Levi    50 

B'ne   Reuben    I3 


Canaan    4.    12,  13 

Capital  City   29,  46,  47 

Census  of  geriiii    20 

City,  building  of    I4 

City-gate   3.  4,  27.  28 

City-gods     6 

City,  fortified  15,  16,  23.  27 

City-kings,     6 

City-Kingdoms,    see    City-States. 

City-States     (cantons)  .  .4.  6,  14-16,  22,  23,  27.30,  31,  33-36.43.46,77 

composition  of,   15.  -3'  77 

ecclesiastical  power  of,    46 

pre-Israelite   14-16,  27-32.  43 

Cities  of  Gilead   42 

Cities  of  Hebron   33 

Cities  of  Judah   9.  24,  2^.  26 

Cities  of  the  Land, ^3^  24 

Connubium,    right   of 28 

Council 23.  28,  31.  32.  33.  34,  36.  38.  39.  45.  78 

City-    6,  79 

national-   2,  3,  44.  45 


INDEX  91 

PAGE 

dalliin   (poorer  classes)    79 

David  9,  10,  11,  19,  24,  30,  33,  72 

dayan    (officer,   judge)     40 

Deborah    n.  4i 

Song   of 12,  42 

deror  (liberty) 72,  7Z^  75,  76 

Dinah    28 

'ed,  'edim   (witness)   56.  58,  71 

'edah    (national  council)    29,  50 

Elders    3.   16,  52 

elcph,  alaphiiii,    (thousands,   regiments,   cities)    8,  9,  10.  34,  77 

Eli,   priest-judge,    12,  41 

Elisha    47,  48 

em    (fortihed  city)    I5 

Ephraim  10.  17,  26,  39,  42,  43 

Ephron     34 

Ezra     80 

c::rah  (native)    20,  60,  61 

Federal  Government   43,  45,  62,  63,  68,  75 

Court  50.  54.  59,  60,  80,  81 

Fictio  Juris   (legal  fiction)    68,  69 

gebarim    (soldiers)    : 7,  8 

ger,  gerim    (alien)    19,  20,  21,  57,  60,  61,  78 

ger  we-tosliah   (resident  alien)    I9-  21,  35 

ge'ullah  (right  of  redemption)    67,  70,  72,  73,  75 

ge'ullah-yabam   law    71 

Gibeah    " 45 

Gibeon 22,  27,  28,  29,  30,  31,  32,  33 

Gideon  8,  ir,  31,  32,  34-38,  41,  42,  51-  54 

Gilead  12,  24,  26,  38,  42,  43,  44,  46,  66 

Gilgal    45 

go' el    (kinsman)    70-  7i 

go'el  ha-dam   (executioner)    48,  50 

goyim    (nations)     25 

Jiai  Jhvh  we-liai  adoni  ha-melek   (form  of  oath)    19 

halisah,  ceremony  of,   69-71 

hainishim    (companies   of   fifty)    8,  10 

hammushim    (soldiers)     10 

Hanamel.  sells  his  land  to  Jeremiah 67 


92  INDEX 

PAGE 

haradah,   waychcrdu    (welcome)    47 

haserim    (villages )    13,   I5.  7S 

hawwot   (villages)    13,  I5 

Hebrew   Commonwealth,   division  of,    7,  8,  49 

Hebron   24,  2?> 

heiek   (portion)    4 

herein   (prohibited)    7 

yahorain   (priestly  form  of  death-sentence)    57,  59.  61 

High  Court  47,  66 

Hittites    19,  33,  34 


Inheritance,  status  of  women,   63-65 

'ir  melukah  (capital  city)    .,. 29 

ish   (collective-men)    47 

ish  zar  (stranger,  outsider)    62,  66 

Ittai    of   Gath    I9 


Jabesh-Gilead    44,  45 

Jacob   14,  27,  28 

Jehu   12,  47 

Jephthah  n,  12,  24,  42,  43 

Jeremiah    24,  35,  46,  67 

Jeroboam    1 1,  24 

Jerub-baal    ( Gideon )     36 

Jerusalem 17,  24,  25,  26,  30,  74 

Jethro    8,  9,  10 

Joash,  chief  of  Abiezer   34,  35 

Joseph,  bet- (house  of,  ten  tribes)    10,  11 

Joshua 7,  9,  19,  22,  28,  29,  30 

Josiah   24,  48 

Jubilee-statute     , 74,  75 

(kallel),  mekaUel,  yekallel  (curse)    60 

kasin    (chieftain)    42,  43 

kiddeshu   (sanctified)    46 

kohanim    (priests,   federal  delegates) 

49,   50,   55,  56,   57,   59,  68,  74.   7S,  7(^,  77 

kol  ha- am  (council,  federal  court)   45,  54,  55,  58 

kol  'am  ha-ares  (federal  council)    74 

kol  ha-'edah  (general  assembly)    29,  60 

kol  ish    (anshe)   Israel   (national  assembly)    41,  45 

kol  Israel  (all  Israel)    ^i 

kopher  (compensation,  Wergild) 30 


INDEX  93 

PAGE 

Land  Laws    51,  61   fif.,  "ji 

lekayein  kol  dabar  (firm,  stable)    71 

Levirate   Marriage    62   ff. 

Levites    6,  22,  75,  76 

liphneh  Jhvh   (trial  by  oracle)    43,  56,  64 

liphneh  ha-kohaiiim   (trial  by  priests)    56 

iiial'ak  Jhvh    (iiabi,  messenger)    34 

Manasseh    10,  11,  13,  17,  26,  31,  34,  39 

Marriage,  prohibited  degrees,    65 

mattot    (tribes)    7,  8 

mehokek   (officer)    40 

melek   (king)    29,  40 

me'ot  (companies  of  hundreds)    8,  10 

met,  ha-   (convict)    58 

midbar-ihorn?,    38,  39 

migdal    (tow^er)    38 

migrash    (fields)     74,  75 

Military  Chiefs  (judges,  shophetim)    12,  14,  39,  40,  41 

Military  organization,   see  Army  Organization. 

mishneh    (quarter   of  Jerusalem)    30 

mishpahali,  mishpahot   (family,  clan).. 7,  8,  10,  35,  64,  66,  67,70,  72 

mishpat   (justice,  case)    20,  64,  68 

mispah    (oppression)     68 

Missionary  Apostate,  see  sarah. 

moreh    (teacher)     53 

Moses    5,  8,  12,  19,  21,  31,  35,  36,  40,  64 

na'ar    (clerk)     38 

nabi,  nebiiii    (prophet)    6,  34,  53,  54,  59,  // 

Naboth 47 

nahalah    (permanent  possession)    74 

Nahash  the  Ammonite   44,  45 

Naphtali 17,  26,  39 

nasi,  nesiim  (prince)    9,  28,  29 

nesi  elohim  (prince  of  God)    2>?> 

nega'   (assault)    50 

niddah    (abhorrent) 65 

nissabim,  of   Solomon    11 

Nob    (city  of  Gibeon  or  priests'  quarter)    28,  30 

nokri,  evez  nokriyah   (alien,  foreign  land)    19 

Og,  king  of  Bashan 13,  15,  21,  29 

ohel  mo'ed   (tent-temple) 22,  31,  64 


94  INDEX 

PAGE 

'olah,   'olot    (offering)    35.  46 

Ophrah,  capital  of  Abiezer  3^.  34.  4i,  46,  54 

Oracle    7,  29,  33,  55,  57,  59,  64 

Palestine,   pre-Israelite    4,   3i,  77 

t>eloni  alinoni  (Mr.  So  and  So)   71 

Penuel   38,  39,  46 

Phineas,  chosen  Pontiff   21,  22 

Provost-marshals  of  army  21,  40 

rebabot    (military   division)    10 

Rebellious  Son   (see  also  ben  sorer  u-moreh)    35 

rib   (controversy) 5o,  56 

ro'ch    (oracle   witness)     55 

rosh    (chieftain)     42,  43 

rosh   ha-'am    (high    court )     47 

rashe    ha-'am    (chieftains)     40 

rashim  of  alaphiin,  identilied  with  nesiiin, 9 

rosh  lekol  yoshebe  Gilead  (, first  of  all  the  lords)    42 

Rosh    ha-ma'os     34 

Ruth,  sikne  ha-'ir  law  in 70-72 

purpose    of    Book,    7^ 

sakir  (hired  servant)    ' 20 

Samuel    12,  41,  46,  47 

sar,  sarim    ^officer)    10,  25,  38,  39,  47,  74 

sare  Judah   61 

sare  Succoth    38 

sarisiin     74 

sarah,  dibber  sarah  (missionary  apostasy)    50-61,  79 

Saul  8,  9,  10,  28,  30,  34,  45 

segullah  (treasure)    4 

seter,  ba-   (in  secret)    61 

sha'ar,  she'arim   (gate,  court,  city)    27,  58 

shebatim    (tribes)     7,  8 

Shechem,  city-state-   16,  27,  31,  32 

Shechem,  the  Hivite 28 

shem    (Ark  of  the   Covenant)    59,  60 

Shiloh  22,  23,  31,  4T,  42,  78 

shomea' .  shoiiic'im   (witness)    42,  55,  58,  60 

shophet,  shophetim    (chieftain,  judge) 

II,  12,  21,  39,  40,  41,  42,  55,  56,  57,  80,  81 

Sihon,  king  of  Amorites,  13,  I5,  21,  29 

Slavery   2,  21,  74,  75,  79 

Slaves,  release  of,   74 


INDEX  95 

PAGE 

Solomon    II,   19,  30,  46 

som   (convocation,  fast )    25 

sopher   (officer,  scribe)    40 

State,  an  aggregation  of  cities,  23-27,  81 

Strangers,  treatment  of,   2,  18-24,  33,  78 

Succoth    38,   39,  46 

Tamar    69,71 

tail-male    63 

Tribal  Organization  6,  9,  10,  11,  12,  14 

wayebakeshu    (consulted)    35 

way 0 mm    (pronounced   judgment)    35 

Witnesses,  false   56,  57 

yabatii    (see    Levirate    Marriage)     62,  63,  65,  66,  68,  69,  71,  72 

yeriishah    (inheritance)     67 

yoshebim,  yoshebe   (magnates)    29,  47 

Zcbahiiii    (offerings)     46 

Zedekiah-statute    74,  76 

2ekenim   (elders,  magnates)    ..4,  14,  29,  33,  39,  42,  43,  47,  69,  70,  71 
zikne  ha-'ir  (elders  of  the  city) 

2,3,  35,  36,  37,  39,  47,  48,  49,  50,  51,  61,  68,  69,  70,  74-  75.  7^,  77 

79,  80,  81 

jurisdiction  of,  political   42  ff. 

ecclesiastical 46 

municipal     47 

judicial     48 

cikne   Jabesh    48 

Zelophehad,  daughters  of   64,  66,  67 

zolel  zve-sobe   (glutton  and  drunkard)    52,  54 

Hebrew  Words  Considered    (which  see) 

ahuzzah;  alaphim;  'am;  'am  ha-ares;  'amad  'al;  anashim; 
arur;  'asarot;  bamaJi;  banot;  be'alim;  bekor;  ben  sorer 
u-moreh;  berit;  bet  ab;  bet  elohim;  dallim;  dayan;  deror; 
'ed;  'edah;  eleph;  em;  esrah;  gebarim;  ger;  ger  we-toshab ; 
ge'ullah;  go'el;  go'el  ha-dam;  goyim;  hai  Jhvh  ive-hai  adoni 
ha-melek;  halisah;  hamishim;  hammushim;  haradah; 
haserim;  hawmot;  helek;  herein;  'ir  melukah;  ish;  ish  zar, 
(kallel)  ;  kasin;  kiddeshu;  kohanim;  kol  ha-'am;  kol  'am  ha-ares; 
kol  ha-' edah;  kol  ish  Israel;  kol  Israel;  kopher;  lekayein  kol 
dahar;    liphneh    Jhvh;    Uphnch    ha-kohamm;    mal'ak    Jhvh; 


96  INDEX 

iiiattot ;  mchokek;  nielek;  vie'ot;  met;  vtidbar;  vtigdal; 
migrash;  mislineh;  mishpahah;  mishpaf;  mispah;  moreh; 
iia'ar;  nabi;  nahalah;  nasi;  nega' ;  niddah;  nissabim;  nokri; 
ohel  mo'ed;  'olah;  peloni  alinoni;  rib;  ro'eh;  rosh;  rosh 
ha-'am;  rosh  lekol  Israel;  sakir;  sar;  sarisim;  sarah,  dibber 
sarah;  segnUah;  ba-seter;  sha'ar;  shebatim;  sheiii;  shomea'; 
sliopJiet;  som;  sopher;  wayebakesliu;  wayomru;  yabam; 
yenishah;  yoshebiiii;  sebahiin;  zekenim;  zikne  ha-'ir;  zolel 
zve-sobe 


Date  Due 

T*    T  T    2^ht 

'>  i     "Vi 

'• 'I*     '' 

f 

Ijii 

''mm 


PI  I  iiilii  1    iiii;s'r,:;r*««« 


iillii 

!  Hii!!! 

I 


^  I, 


liiil! 

lliiil  111! 

lipillijii' 

mm 


Iji  iiiiii!! 


i 


it 


liillillliilill 


iiii 


P 

ml 
Wm 
mm 

[mm 

-'iPlP 

PI 
ill  i 


Iillii  iiii 


isi    I  hi!!  Hi    i'i.i 


-■III! 


III! 
lii 


iiii     » ill 


tr  I  lu|i!|i  iiii  ji  I? 

iiiSliiiilr. 


,.;•(!»•  (ill 


iiiiii 


-in^.^M^mnywilaililiijiiliilSil 
Hiii!  ill  ilf! 'H  iiii  iiii! 

I  Iiii 


iillii  il 


ill 


Wm  ! 
I    ! 


i    II  Pi 

HI!  tli  ids  illi!  ilHii!  H  i  f  a  HP  i  i  I W 

illiilii  iiif^^^^^^^ 

till  liii  iiiliiiiM^b 

liMM 

, ,, 


